What will Iran do if it is attacked?

Ever since Bush's 2002 "axis of evil" speech gave notice to Iran that
Bush had that nation in his sights, what do you think they have been
doing to prepare for an attack?

Put yourself in their position: With 5-1/2 years notice of attack,
what measures would you put in place?

To me, at least, the answer is obvious, but I'd like to hear what
others think Iran's reaction to a U.S. or Israeli attack would be.

And for that matter, Turkey and Venezuela?

and solving the unemployment expensive fuel will create by making sure we have a steady stream of people wanting to kill us.

and a share of the spoils. Russia and China fear a wounded dangerous America far more than they fear Iran being dismembered. Turkey will grab popcorn and sit back and watch while someone else pummels their age old enemies the Persians. Venezuela will scream and whine and that's about it.

Iran will have to fight a 3 front war........at least, probably a 4 front war

US attacks from inside Iraq and Azerbaijan, Air strikes and SF raids from Afghanistan, Kurds, Azeris and Mandianis will rise up from within as they HATE HATE HATE the Persians, and if the Baluchis get fired up, then there will be a Pakistan front, as in the Baluchis will mount cross border raids into Iran proper in their quest for a Free Baluchistan.

China has a treaty with Iran - where Iran provides oil to China. Not sure what the reciprocal agreement is; hope Bush does.

I suspect the USSR is already tired of Bush;

I suspect just about the whole damn world is tired of Bush with the exception of Israel.

And I do believe that Iran has said if attacked - they will consider American assets all over the world as viable targets - as rightly they should.

Bush is a fucking idiot - and Nancy was wrong to disenfranchise the American people.

But I guess as long as the rich continue to get what they want from this nation (our wealth) then whatever Bush does is acceptable.

And finally, the MSM is another big fucking joke.

And Japan had a treat with the Russian in 1905 and the French had a treaty with the British in 1812........Treaties are rarely worth the paper they are printed on. China cannot afford to have America go down as the entire Chinese economy is based on American consumer spending. China will hope for a quik US victory and a share of the oil spoils.........There is no more USSR, and Putin is as racist as he is pragmatic. If he can quietly support a strike on brown skinned muslims and make some money off of selling more of HIS oil to China at the expense of Iran's oil he will do it. I'm not saying these people like America, they just are smart enough to bet on the horse that is going to win..........

Post 43, China and Russia will both back up Iran, the oil is way too important and China is able to peddle their wares all over the world. This isn't 1812 or 1905. Secondly, there will not be a quick US victory as stated. All you have to do is look at the cakewalk Iraq has been. :sarcasm:

The USSR? There's an opinion that's a little behind the times, wouldn't you say?

That's all I can do. Otherwise, President Bush will have started World War 3! IMO!

And THIS next world war will be at least as deadly to civilians as was the last one! Bush wasn't even born when the last World War happened. He never learned about it, he is no serious student of history! How can he ever know how horrid it was?

Edited to add, I ASSUMED you meant by your question that Bush and the neocons would be the ones doing the attacking!

"...he is no serious student of history!" So funny you said that, because history was Chimpy's major in college. However, I agree with you, he wasn't a serious student, period! :eyes:

Shutting down oil flow from the rest of the gulf would screw the rest of the world and put pressure on us to stop Bush.

They could attack American troops in Iraq.

I would expect they will act militarily and not just resort to terror tactics.

That way they would have to draft a large army and conquer the Mid-East. They would then have to occupy it just like after WWII with Europe and Japan. The Mid-East would then become just like Europe and Japan - because all people at all times are exactly the same, don't you know? That is the only way any of this shit makes sense.
Create another WW and have the same outcome as last time - piece of cake, right?

They want to pump oil from ANWAR and from the gulf off Florida and they want to open up the east and west coast for oil exploration. They want all the money they can make from another major war. So long as they cash in on the chaos that's all that matters.

attacks Iran? This will not be a pretty picture, and I really don't give a crap what fire power the US has. There are all kinds of lesser scenarios, but I can certainly see a nuke one in there as well.

ww

CIA leaks plans to do so right after the Labor Day Holiday.

Ready for the final surprise?

Any major attack on Israel and they launch their advanced nuclear weaponry and Iran is gone. Forever.

Don't count on any attacks on Israel from Iran.

Damaging Jerusalem would damage the Dome of the Rock -- the holiest spot in Islam after the Kaaba, and trying to drive the Jews into the sea, as the old jingo goes would make Golda Meir look like M.K. Ghandi in comparison, should bombs rain down on Tel-Aviv Metro. Plus, the IDF would probably annihialate the Iranian AF minutes in the air, if the US did not first.

Iran and Turkey have never attacked Israel, unlike all their neighbors (except Lebanon and Cyprus).

Iran would have to fly over the Gulf Allies or else US and allied controlled air space to get to Tel Aviv. They would not get far. The IDF would have them down in flames before they got into Iraqi space, or the US over one of the Stans or SA or the UAE.

I doubt Iran could rely upon much support from any quarter save some lip service from their oil partners, Russia and China. Just like the US might be lucky to get Gordon Brown to say "stop it, I sorta mean it." were the US to launch a massive air/missile attack upon Iran. The Likudniks would love it but no one else.

I was surprised at that. If I was in Iran's position, I would have a
crew in place ready to do something as soon as the attack happened. That
was my reference to "the answer is obvious" in the OP. But maybe it's not so obvious,
so maybe (PLEASE!) it won't happen.

And maybe (PRETTY PLEASE!) the attack on Iran won't happen!

Anyway, on the other points brought up by folks looking at international complications, here's
my uninformed guesses:

I think China has strong ties with Iran and would extend aid but wouldn't
go to war because of the Olympics. I bet China would rebuild any damage U.S.
attack did.

Russia, I don't know. They wouldn't support us, that's for sure. Maybe
send troops to the Arctic to bolster their claim while we're too weak to
respond.

Turkey, I don't know. I'd love to hear an analysis of Turkey's position.
I don't even know whether Turkey is Shiite or Sunni, duh...

Venezuela would probably push for some sort of oil boycott. Remember
the oil boycott of the 70's?

Also: I wonder who in the federal government is doing this what-if thinking? Or whether
they're just reading Tim LaHaye books to figure out what will happen...

I know that it is far more complex than the US government seems to think.

China will support Iran, but the US is China's cash-cow right now, so it is hard to see how stiff China's resistance to US aggression will be.

Russia is looking to flex muscles, but in what form remains to be seen. India, too, has good relations with Iran and that is an unruly mix for our dim-witted masters to grok.

If we bomb Iran (which I believe is coming) the whole global/political/diplomatic framework and foundation build over the last 60 years will be thrown into a cocked-hat. Invading and brutalizing Iraq was bad enough, but will pale in comparison, on the world stage, to criminally attacking Iran...

The Chinese have much more to lose by backing the wrong side than anyone......The Chinese are pragmatists, they will side with America reluctantly and hope to share the spoils........Outside Venezuela, Myanmar, North Korea and three or four other countries Iran will be quite alone. Sunni Arabs will actively support the US and the Turks will squeal with laughter as someone other than them pummels their centuries old enemy.........

Backing America in a non-UN-authorized strike against Iran means supporting Bush and the Neocons. True, Bush & Neocons have money and (for another year and a half, barring impeachment) power.

But long-range pragmatists may calculate that Bush & Neocons are on the way out. Look how costly backing Bush was for Blair.

After Bush and Neocons are out of power, there will be a power vacuum. Bush's enablers are not likely to have much credibility assembling voting blocs of countries in the U.N., for instance. It's like Democrats facing consequences of enabling Bush on domestic issues.

Note that China is not in list of the "Coalition of Willing" that supported US in Iraq.

COALITION OF WILLING (from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2862343.stm):

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.
---

That's my reasoning.

I find this discussion fascinating.

neocon play book, they thought they had Iraq all figured out also.

but the number rule is that nations act in their own self interest. For China and Russia, America winning in Iran is far far more preferable to America losing in Iran........

Muslim militants in Turkey might stir shit up on the (possibly true) grounds that the US is going to war with all Islam, not to mention the likelihood of a Kurdish uprising in Turkey in support of their brethren in Iraq and Iran.

Attacking inside the US would guarantee that the next President would be just as hostile.

POW!!!!!!

Oh...


...sh*t.....

launches swarms of missiles at Gulf state oil facilities and merchant ships in the Gulf. They also ramp up the harassment of U.S. forces and facilities in Lebanon, Iraq and western Afghanistan.

The Shia of southern Iraq abandon the governing coalition and side w/Iran.

China and Russia provide covert support for Iran but behave cautiously. Chavez makes a lot of noise but does little.

Israel stays out and Turkey stays out - unless they decide to use the chaos as cover for a small land grab in northern Iraq, but I think that's not likely, unless they get the wink from the U.S.

Wild card would be an Iranian incursion into northern Iraq.

I don't see it conflaging into WWIII overnight. But the economic impact on the Western world would be savage.

The military with the Dems backing may refuse a Bush attack order. The military knows they are stretched to the limit and could not handle attacking a REAL military like Iran's. I don't expect a Iranian strike.

RPGs, sniper rifles, AK-47s, mines, IEDs ... pretty much the same as Iraq ... plus a couple of hundred Scud type missiles.

There's really not much they can do besides try to attack US bases with special forces.

in a matter of minutes, They'll cut off all supply lines, basically our soldiers in Iraq would be fucked.

...

coming up from Kuwait

the MSR from Kuwait only supplies 40% of all supplies.......Furthermore how does an insurgency stop a mechanized force from resuppyling itself? If they blow the roads we go off road like we did in 2003.........Can't stop the Desert Express........I always find the belief laughable that the American military could have its supply lines cut. I'm not saying we are Super duper awesome and no one can touch us, but cmon man.....How exactly does a guerilla army with no force multipliers and the inability to protect their own battlespace have the ability to cut off the supply lines for a mechanized force?? Answer? It can't.......I mean if the Supply lines were threatened, really threatened then all 500 Apaches would be flying route security on the MSR's...........Give me something believeable to work with.........Knocking a few bridges down isn't threatening the supply lines.........Finally how does the insurgency stop the supply lines if we shifted them to the hard pan Iraqi desert? We supplied 160,000 soldiers over that route for a few months back in 2003......We use the roads because it is easier, not because we are tied to them, we use the roads because we make stops all along the way that are next to the roads, most of those stops are for Iraqis.......Cmon.........

:rofl:

convoys for supply and they will be more vuneralable espeacially if Iran join the fight. We don't have a large enough force over there do what you describe indefinately. Do you know the additional cost it would take to have Apache escorts for every convoy that supply our bases throughout Iraq.

How does Iran attack convoys in the desert that are hundreds of miles from Iranian territory? How do they cross hostile terrain, American intelligence assets, and American combat forces to hit convoys they cannot find. The Western Iraqi desert is immense, the Iranian have no Intelligence assets to provide them the ability to see our forces in that desert.........

So again how does a leg infantry Army with no force multipliers, no mech heavy forces, little strategic intelligence gathering abilities and no ability to logistically supply their own forces find the US forces in the desert, let alone attack them.

Sorry, my time in Iraq tells me what you describe is impossible.........

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"With 5-1/2 years notice of attack,
what measures would you put in place?"

I would imagine they have done all they could to get nuclear capability. Do they have it yet? I don't know but I'm sure they are working around the clock on this.

Aside from that, there big impact would be with oil flow. I can't think of anything else significant as I believe that the major player countries would stay out of it.

And I agree with the poster who says the U.S. military is stretched. The top commanders may very well balk at being told to go into Iran. If so, then it becomes an Air Force mission almost solely, dropping bombs here, there, and everywhere.

Iran could attack the desalinization plants in the Gulf states thus causing quite a catastrophe in the heart of the production center of the most essential ingredient in the world's industrial economy. This is something they are quite capable of if they chose to do. And they would have nothing to lose. Their missiles may not be the latest high-tech variety. But they have lots and lots of them deeply embedded in unapproachable terrain. And its only a couple of hundred miles across the Gulf. There would be little ability to defend against such an attack.

Of course Iran could attack the oil refiners and oil tankers which I suspect they could do quite effectively. Although the Gulf states would prefer to stay out of it -- if the U.S. was to push the issue I suspect they would pressure the Gulf states into cooperation at least in terms of air space and at least some use of facilities. This would give Iran every reason to retaliate against the Eastern Arabian Peninsula Gulf states. This is a fight to the death for the survival of their state.
And make no mistake about it. As much as many Iranians may want change.
They are as astoundingly patriotic and nationalistic as any people have ever been. This is a society where little 13-year-old boys volunteered excitedly to run through mind fields by the tens of thousands. The ones who didn't get to go cried.

The destruction of much of the core of the world's production center for oil and the breaking of the transport mechanism for oil would likely trigger a worldwide oil crisis and send oil prices into the stratosphere thus quite possibly causing a global economic depression.

The American way of life as we have known it for the past 50 years would probably come to an end at least for the foreseeable future

It would takes years if not decades for things to return things to normal.

Here are some thought from Zbigniew Brzezinski, the National Security Adviser under President Carter:

link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

snip:"likely Iranian reactions would significantly compound ongoing U.S. difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps precipitate new violence by Hezbollah in Lebanon and possibly elsewhere, and in all probability bog down the United States in regional violence for a decade or more. Iran is a country of about 70 million people, and a conflict with it would make the misadventure in Iraq look trivial.

Finally, the United States, in the wake of the attack, would become an even more likely target of terrorism while reinforcing global suspicions that U.S. support for Israel is in itself a major cause of the rise of Islamic terrorism. The United States would become more isolated and thus more vulnerable while prospects for an eventual regional accommodation between Israel and its neighbors would be ever more remote."
_________

"I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vanity Fair, 2006.

.

Wow. Volunteered? Excitedly? Are you sure of that? 13 year olds aren't considered to be old enough to make value judgements are they?

I'm thinking the ones who didn't get to go cried in relief.

They did indeed volunteer of and were indeed excited to go.

I realize the whole thing sound strange to our way of thinking. But that is exactly what happened. And remember children were going off to war at least as drummer boys in the western world, not that long ago. As recent as the American Civil War and probably more recent than that elsewhere in the Western World.

Robert Fisk spent some time writing about the Iranian boy soldier volunteers in his book,
"The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East"
Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Great-War-Civilisation-Conquest-Middle/dp/1400075173/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-2802997-3968618?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188882551&sr=1-1

Christiane Amanpour mentioned it in part 2 of her CNN special "God's Warriors" which aired just a couple of weeks ago.

And these facts have been reported by a whole multitude of other sources and is common knowledge to anyone familiar with the Iran-Iraq War.

How many sympathizers are living right here in the US?

Millions? Bush has been playing chicken with American lives since he took office.

First with our military and now with civilians living here.

If the politicians are removed... problem solved.

Most Sunni Muslims absolutely loathe the Iranian Shiite state at least as much or more than they do Israel or any other state. I would doubt that Shiite Muslims make up anymore than 10% maximum of the American Muslim population. And only a very small percentage of them would be followers of the Iranian Grand Ayatollah Khamani, the supreme religious leader of Iran.

The galvanized HATRED of this administration. They can/may unite to overthrow the US simply by knocking out power grids from coast to coast. Then setting off bombs in strategic states, thereby crippling this country for months to come.

and even a much smaller minority of a small minority of a small minority that would feel any solidarity with the Iranian state. Most American Muslims are actually fairly patriotic toward America however much they may disapprove of American policy in the Middle East.

But I certainly do agree that an attack on Iran would increase the possibility of some form of domestic terrorism.

If I were an EXPAT living overseas with millions of other EXPATS and the country I was living in decided on unprovoked attack on my homeland... I guess situations like this were and are the impetus for (underground) militant political activisism....

:scared:

We already went beyond the worst case scenario ever envisioned for a US attack on Iraq. An attack on Iran would make Iraq blowback look tame by comparison.

Many people will die if we attack Iran, and some of them will not die on Iranian or Iraqi soil.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece

Sure would be nice to see some polling data on mainstream media to find out how many Americans support such a move...

Sure, they will lob a few missiles at Tel Aviv. Might even inspire Hebzollah to repeat their earlier shenanigans. Economically, they will blockade the Straights of Hormuz, for one thing.Price of oil will spike to well past $100/ barrel. This in itself will be enough to push us into a full blown recession , the severity of which could be comparable to the great depression of the 30s. (We had a Republican "deregulate the markets" corporatist president then as well, if you recall) Iran's international alliances include Russia, China, and much of Eastern Europe, which in turn has various ties with the EU.

China is the big stick here. They own so much of our debt they actually control our future. If they decide not to be benevolent, we are screwed blued and tattooed. Russia, which is devising strategies daily that will put them back to the preeminent position they once held in the world, will work behind the scenes to fuck us over at every turn.

If all goes well with the plan, the US economy will be permanently wrecked, much like England's in the past century, never to recover or pose a threat to the world for many generations.

This of course, is all excluded from the neocon fever dream. They never make allowances for the worst case scenario. They are at it's base, operating from belief rather than fact. They can't account for what happens if things aren't as their beliefs state.

if you were Bush would you not plan a sneak attack on Iran that would make Pearl Harbor pale in comparison.

You might kill a whole bunch of ants with the first blows. But those ants would just keep coming and coming and coming.

Iran's military strength is largely in the enormous number of not-so-long-ranged missiles spread out over a vast area and deeply embedded in unapproachable terrain and backed up with vast webs of underground networks in a country with about 70 million people.

A "Pearl Harbor" type attack would place Iran in the position of a life or death survival for their independence and the survival of their state. And make no mistake about. Iranians are one of the most fiercely nationalistic and patriotic people the world has ever seen. The earnest sacrifices of children crying to go the mine fields in the front lines during the Iran-Iraq war certainly proved that. Liberal reformers would no more turn against their country under bombardment and siege than critics of FDR would have signed up with the Axis powers following Pearl Harbor or Russian opponents of Stalin would have betrayed mother Russia under siege.

A "Pearl Harbor" type attack would require the cooperation of the Gulf states. The Gulf and the Gulf states are where more than 50% of the world's oil is either tapped, refined or transported. A "Pearl Harbor" type attack would give Iran every reason and every incentive to cripple that, which they could do with little to no ability to stop them. It would be hard to overstate the consequence of this.
________________________________

"I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vanity Fair, 2006.

.

probably all it could,while it could. but the us and israel along with others in the region would do serious damage to iran and quickly,this would be it,and i hate to say this ,i was against BOTH wars on iraq,but something HAS TO BE DONE,the iran/syria/hamas/hezballah cabal has to be seriously damaged.we simply cant leave this part of the world,sitting on the oil it is sitting on,and HOPE things,HOPE IS NOT A PLAN,all the other players in the region(russia,china,turkey) will do what they think will be for their best interests,and by the way hillary clinton and the establish democratic party will NEVER<NEVER try to put the nix on this in an election,if ever,when israel is involved,all the non establishment democrats(edwards etc.) will be dismissed out of hand ONE TIN SOLDIRE

threatening and bullying is not diplomacy.

It is hard to overstate the consequences of war with Iran.

If an attack were to occur, even if there was initial political support, when the longterm consequences of a war with Iran becomes clear, whoever was deemed responsible for leading us into this intractable and un-winnable quagmire would pay a very, very dear political price.

However I am afraid that your are quite correct that the establishment Dems would probably not vigorously oppose a military strike on Iran. Eric Alterman did a very interesting interview about lobbying efforts on Democrats favoring war with Iran - link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nch43wy8Zb8 . My greatest political nightmare is that America could find itself in even a far, far more devastating quagmire in a war with Iran that would make the Iraq War look like a Sunday School picnic -- only this time lead by a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. And just like with Viet Nam in the 1960's the party is wrecked and torn apart.

----------------

"I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vanity Fair, 2006.

----------------

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007. N=1,028 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
5/4-6/07

If the U.S. government decides to take military action in Iran, would you favor or oppose it?"

Favor 33%

Oppose 63%

Unsure 4%

link: http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm
___________________________


Been there, done that by Zbigniew Brzezinski who was national security advisor to President Carter from 1977 to 1981.

link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

snip:"But there are four compelling reasons against a preventive air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities:

First, in the absence of an imminent threat (and the Iranians are at least several years away from having a nuclear arsenal), the attack would be a unilateral act of war. If undertaken without a formal congressional declaration of war, an attack would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the president. Similarly, if undertaken without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, either alone by the United States or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrator(s) as an international outlaw(s).

Second, likely Iranian reactions would significantly compound ongoing U.S. difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps precipitate new violence by Hezbollah in Lebanon and possibly elsewhere, and in all probability bog down the United States in regional violence for a decade or more. Iran is a country of about 70 million people, and a conflict with it would make the misadventure in Iraq look trivial.

Third, oil prices would climb steeply, especially if the Iranians were to cut their production or seek to disrupt the flow of oil from the nearby Saudi oil fields. The world economy would be severely affected, and the United States would be blamed for it. Note that oil prices have already shot above $70 per barrel, in part because of fears of a U.S.-Iran clash.

Finally, the United States, in the wake of the attack, would become an even more likely target of terrorism while reinforcing global suspicions that U.S. support for Israel is in itself a major cause of the rise of Islamic terrorism. The United States would become more isolated and thus more vulnerable while prospects for an eventual regional accommodation between Israel and its neighbors would be ever more remote."

read full article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions



http://www.dontattackiran.org

Whoever wins in 2008 will know that Americans won't stand for more dead American Soldiers. If we invade Iran it's going to be done from the air and we will have no reservation about bombing civilian targets. By the time boots are put on the ground, the ground will likely be all that is left.

IMO, it's essential that a Democrat wins in 2008 so that we can use diplomacy to solve this problem.

We'll just bomb Iran and they'll just give up????? Right, that's what we said about Vietnam an Iraq. Look how they turned out.

When we did Iraq, we bombed with supposed military and strategic intentions. If we do Iran there will be bombing specifically to terrorize the civilian population, like we did to Dresden and other German cities in World War II.

Why would Syria, Pakistan, Palestine and probably Russia sit back and allow it to happen? China would not be pleased in the least.

The US can not attack them all back nor hold them back, if that was to be the case, then WWIII would commence.

"Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter, was the Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times. He spent seven years in the Middle East and reported frequently from Iran."

link to full article : http://www.alternet.org/audits/61521/?page=2

"The Pentagon has reportedly drawn up plans for a series of airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran. The air attacks are designed to cripple the Iranians’ military capability in three days.

The Bushehr nuclear power plant, along with targets in Saghand and Yazd, the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, a heavy-water plant and radioisotope facility in Arak, the Ardekan Nuclear Fuel Unit, and the uranium conversion facility and nuclear technology center in Isfahan, will all probably be struck by the United States and perhaps even Israeli warplanes. The Tehran Nuclear Research Center, the Tehran molybdenum, iodine and xenon radioisotope production facility, the Tehran Jabr Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Laboratories, and the Kalaye Electric Co. in the Tehran suburbs will also most likely come under attack.

But then what? We don’t have the troops to invade. And we don’t have anyone minding the helm who knows the slightest thing about Persian culture or the Middle East. There is no one in power in Washington with the empathy to get it. We will lurch blindly into a catastrophe of our own creation.

It is not hard to imagine what will happen. Iranian Shabab-3 and Shabab-4 missiles, which cannot reach the United States, will be launched at Israel, as well as American military bases and the Green Zone in Baghdad. Expect massive American casualties, especially in Iraq, where Iranian agents and their Iraqi allies will be able to call in precise coordinates. The Strait of Hormuz, which is the corridor for 20 percent of the world’s oil supply, will be shut down. Chinese-supplied C-801 and C-802 anti-shipping missiles, mines and coastal artillery will target U.S. shipping, along with Saudi oil production and oil export centers. Oil prices will skyrocket to well over $4 a gallon. The dollar will tumble against the euro. Hezbollah forces in southern Lebanon, interpreting the war as an attack on all Shiites, will fire rockets into northern Israel. Israel, already struck by missiles from Tehran, will begin retaliatory raids on Lebanon and Iran. Pakistan, with a huge Shiite minority, will reach greater levels of instability. The unrest could result in the overthrow of the weakened American ally President Pervez Musharraf and usher into power Islamic radicals. Pakistan could become the first radical Islamic state to possess a nuclear weapon. The neat little war with Iran, which few Democrats oppose, has the potential to ignite a regional inferno. "


link to full article : http://www.alternet.org/audits/61521/?page=2

____________________________________________

"I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vanity Fair, 2006.



.