Iran assessment (no politics please)

[Lcp Purcell]

I recall a long series of news stories about five or eight years ago suggesting that the Iranian public was on the verge of uprising to overthrow the government. I assume that this sentiment was quashed by the government's rather violent response over the years ensuing. So, what's the current internal state of Iran? Are there a large number of dissatisfied and relatively "progressive" younger people anxious for more freedom, or have they been quashed or subdued to the point that the regime really isn't threatened from within?

Yes and no, let us recall the day after 9/11 George W's approval rating went from 50% to 90% it is human nature to rally around the leader when confronted with an outside threat, even if you don't really like that leader. At the end of W's time in office, Americans no longer felt threatened by Iraq, or to the same degree threatened by terrorism so he no longer had the rally around the leader factor.

Politics in this country has not gone the way Iranian progressives thought it would. We talk an awful lot about bombing them back to the Stone age. That is a unifying factor, and of course the regime ruthless crushed the opposition.

[Lcp Purcell]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

impossibility of running a modern country with a 100.0% reduction in one's main / exclusive (?) cash export

a person would expect Saudi Arabia to have a far more sophisticated manufacturing center and military industrial complex than Iran, they are richer, they are better educated, they have unfettered access to import advanced technology but they don't have a better industrial complex. Because they have no need to. In 1979 we started an ongoing embargo against Iran, they could not get spare parts for their military equipment, so they figured out how to make those spare parts themselves, 30 some years of sanctions has left them fairly self reliant, while Saudi Arabia buys all their spare parts from us. Iran does not have a modern economy, they have a 19th century economy the kind we had when import tariffs ran 25%-50%

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

War IS scarey gentlemen. But a very important part of the use of war is the THREAT of war. Hitler knew that. So did Stalin. And to counter such a threat , one can appease it (AKA Chamberlain) or face it down, such as Truman ,Reagan , (and to a lesser degree LeMay and Kissenger). But brinksmanship might lead to real war. Appeasement definately will. [:(]

Hitler and Stalin were both facing cultures which value life and reject suicide operaitons as part of a religious tradition, even if that tradition is of a spectrum. I spent a lot of time underwater thinking about MAD. I thought then and do now that it is unlikely that any current nuclear power would even approach that threshold. I don't know if Iran would. That's a problem.

Unfortunately, given geography and the relative military strengths in the neighborhood, Iran doesn't necessarily need nukes to engage in MAD, or at least attempt it. The border with Israel is about two taxi rides away; so is the Saudi border. I have a great imagination. I can imagine everything in Iran which rolls being dragooned into an effort to take one million men to either border, and then across. I can also image what it might look like if 25,000 men were infiltrated into the eurozone nations, armed with kitchen knives, and set onto shopping centers, theaters, schools, and hospitals simultaneously. No shoreline in Europe is secure, and thousands of merchant vessles move across the Med in international waters every day. Zodiacs are cheap.

Asymetric warfare as engineered by Iran has mostly stuck inside the region. It need not stay there.

Returning to the USSR comparison, Stalin, for all his evilness, could be dealt with. We understood what he wanted--a sphere of influence and buffers against another German war. The Kennan doctrine offered that and NATO backed it up. What can we give Iran? Nothing which would satisfy them is possible for us. Yet we cannot allow them to have nuclear weapons either. Containment only works within a framework of cultural truths (we love our children as much as the Russians.) Those truths don't exist in the current environment.

[US87891]

<deleted>

Sorry. Forgot who I was talking to. I truly feel sorry for you folks. I truly do.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

War IS scarey gentlemen. But a very important part of the use of war is the THREAT of war. Hitler knew that. So did Stalin. And to counter such a threat , one can appease it (AKA Chamberlain) or face it down, such as Truman ,Reagan , (and to a lesser degree LeMay and Kissenger). But brinksmanship might lead to real war. Appeasement definately will. [:(]

Hitler and Stalin were both facing cultures which value life and reject suicide operaitons as part of a religious tradition, even if that tradition is of a spectrum. I spent a lot of time underwater thinking about MAD. I thought then and do now that it is unlikely that any current nuclear power would even approach that threshold. I don't know if Iran would. That's a problem.

Unfortunately, given geography and the relative military strengths in the neighborhood, Iran doesn't necessarily need nukes to engage in MAD, or at least attempt it. The border with Israel is about two taxi rides away; so is the Saudi border. I have a great imagination. I can imagine everything in Iran which rolls being dragooned into an effort to take one million men to either border, and then across. I can also image what it might look like if 25,000 men were infiltrated into the eurozone nations, armed with kitchen knives, and set onto shopping centers, theaters, schools, and hospitals simultaneously. No shoreline in Europe is secure, and thousands of merchant vessles move across the Med in international waters every day. Zodiacs are cheap.

Asymetric warfare as engineered by Iran has mostly stuck inside the region. It need not stay there.

Returning to the USSR comparison, Stalin, for all his evilness, could be dealt with. We understood what he wanted--a sphere of influence and buffers against another German war. The Kennan doctrine offered that and NATO backed it up. What can we give Iran? Nothing which would satisfy them is possible for us. Yet we cannot allow them to have nuclear weapons either. Containment only works within a framework of cultural truths (we love our children as much as the Russians.) Those truths don't exist in the current environment.

True, but they're not unique in their world view either. Iran's got nothing on Pakistan or North Korea with regards to subjugation of the individual at the behest of the state. If Pakistan wanted to drum up xenophobic or racist / islamist emotion for a (nuclear) war against India, they could gin that easily enough. But yet they haven't. Same with North Korea too.

There's something holding 'em back at some level. Maybe they DO fear for their corporeal existence, knowing that a B2 flight and a couple 2000lb. JDAMs are just about two hours flight time from their workplace and, if necessary, their home.

I'm an optimist (most of the time). I still believe that-as 'rogue' as these governments are, they're sane at some level. Therefore, they have a singular interest in preserving their existence and understand that theirs is a tenuous hold.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

This is my thought as well. Lost in the discussion of the difficulty / impossibility of running a modern country with a 100.0% reduction in one's main / exclusive (?) cash export.

We have the capability to stop all petroleum exports from and across Iran. If it comes to the Nth hour I expect the last move will be a total naval blockade, which is itself an act of war under international law. But I think that would only serve to accelerate the timeline inside Iran, not cauterize the crisis.

Bombing refineries or crude oil storage facilities used for exporting crude oil could accomplished relatively easily. There's enough domestic grumbling now about Tehran's air quality issues from poor gasoline refinery practices, what would it look like when their domestic stocks (not to mention cash export) dropped to exactly nothing? Would there be massive civil strife and make settlement a 'must'? Nobody has done this before to Iran. They must take the threat of their civil market economy utterly collapsing as an existential threat and deal with it.

Traditionally, when attacked by outside force, cultures tend to shift their focus inward and support their leaderhsip, at least in the short term. I believe a destruction of the oil industry would force the regime's hand. It would not lead to them standing down.

Here, I believe there to be division between the Ayatollah and President Ahm-mad-in-da-head. While the latter is willing to lie, cheat, steal and obfuscate his way towards nuclear-armed status, I'm not convinced that the religious hard liners share the identical fervor. I don't know if they want to go 'all in' to use organically-produced nuclear weapons against Israel as a means of sealing their national fate.

That's the big IF isn't it? The biggest part of deterrence isn't haivng the capability. It's convincing the other guy you'll use the capability. In that respect the past decade might have given the US that credibility. But it still comes down to what Iran does internally. We don't control events; we'd be reacting to them.

Asymmetric warfare works both ways. If the Iranians close the straits of Hormuz (or try), they've guaranteed that their economy plummets within a few months. Sure, they drag a few down with 'em (notably the Kuwaitis), but they're sealing their fate. We wouldn't have to invade anything.

I disagree. If war comes it's regime change war. Not isolation war. Given our experience in Iraq I don't think anyone thinks regime change could happen quickly and without massive ground forces over many years. Any US leader who believes we'd be met with flowers is delusional. When we did DS the US Army was, from memory, seventeen divisions. It's ten now, and it's tired. Which is why I brought up a draft.

Yes, the Iranians would further foster discord and maybe direct action across their borders, but they've already played that card. If they increase their activities, we (or our regional proxy) increase ours. Quid pro quo. They don't have a mortal lock on getting blood on their hands 'outside of war'.

True, but time is on their side, not ours. Once they have a deliverable weapon, even one, and we believe they do, the calculus changes.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lcp Purcell

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

impossibility of running a modern country with a 100.0% reduction in one's main / exclusive (?) cash export

a person would expect Saudi Arabia to have a far more sophisticated manufacturing center and military industrial complex than Iran, they are richer, they are better educated, they have unfettered access to import advanced technology but they don't have a better industrial complex. Because they have no need to. In 1979 we started an ongoing embargo against Iran, they could not get spare parts for their military equipment, so they figured out how to make those spare parts themselves, 30 some years of sanctions has left them fairly self reliant, while Saudi Arabia buys all their spare parts from us. Iran does not have a modern economy, they have a 19th century economy the kind we had when import tariffs ran 25%-50%

Additionally, SA has a low population base, and it has a cultural view that they don't get their hands dirty. They import guest workers to get their hands dirty. Iran by contrast has a very large, very young, very unemployed male population which can't get brides unless something changes. This is a nation which lost circa one million men in a fruitless war against Iraq. Human wave attacks. And the economy, post-Shah, was relatively much stronger than it is now after decades of mismanagement. Men without women do really stupid things. Men without women infused with religious fervor, a sectarian fervor which teaches martyrdom and has been repressed since the seventh century, are extra dangerous.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lcp Purcell

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

impossibility of running a modern country with a 100.0% reduction in one's main / exclusive (?) cash export

a person would expect Saudi Arabia to have a far more sophisticated manufacturing center and military industrial complex than Iran, they are richer, they are better educated, they have unfettered access to import advanced technology but they don't have a better industrial complex. Because they have no need to. In 1979 we started an ongoing embargo against Iran, they could not get spare parts for their military equipment, so they figured out how to make those spare parts themselves, 30 some years of sanctions has left them fairly self reliant, while Saudi Arabia buys all their spare parts from us. Iran does not have a modern economy, they have a 19th century economy the kind we had when import tariffs ran 25%-50%

Additionally, SA has a low population base, and it has a cultural view that they don't get their hands dirty. They import guest workers to get their hands dirty. Iran by contrast has a very large, very young, very unemployed male population which can't get brides unless something changes. This is a nation which lost circa one million men in a fruitless war against Iraq. Human wave attacks. And the economy, post-Shah, was relatively much stronger than it is now after decades of mismanagement. Men without women do really stupid things. Men without women infused with religious fervor, a sectarian fervor which teaches martyrdom and has been repressed since the seventh century, are extra dangerous.

I think you overestimate the global religious fervor of the youth of Iran, Bull. Lots of very different philosophies amongst the young about the role of religion in their lives. Yes-there's lots of the erstwhile martrys, but many many more that reject that world view.

As for what men do in the absence of women, I hear ya. However, men do crazy stuff around women too. You recently got married, didn't you? [;)]

[Canoerebel]

Very intersting comments and insights gents.

Some folks might say, "You can get this insight elsewhere."

Maybe, but if I go to another website, I won't know the credibility of the people who post. Here, I've known AW1Steve, Bullwinkle and PoultryLad for years and thus have a measure of confidence in their reasoning and conclusions.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

As for what men do in the absence of women, I hear ya. However, men do crazy stuff around women too. You recently got married, didn't you? [;)]

Yep. Best move I ever made. Prevented me from invading Canada.

[Lcp Purcell]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


Unfortunately, given geography and the relative military strengths in the neighborhood, Iran doesn't necessarily need nukes to engage in MAD, or at least attempt it.

true, true... you know if someone blows up your nuclear reactor the natural response would be to blow up theirs. truth is Iran does not need a A-bomb to nuke Israel, they just need to get some GPS guidance into their missiles (which they most likely already have) .....

Full stop. as I was doing a bit of digging to further this post I ran across this bit of ominous news.

Iranian war fears spark closure of Israel reactor THE AUSTRALIAN, January 09, 2012 ISRAEL is preparing to shut its nuclear reactor at Dimona, where it makes nuclear weapons, because of the site’s vulnerability in a war with Iran.

The decision, taken by the Israel Atomic Energy Commission and the
country’s civil defence authorities, follows a realisation that the
facility could be vulnerable to a missile attack.

The Haaretz newspaper quoted officials last week as saying they had
concluded the reactor was no longer impenetrable in the event of war.

Deactivating the reactor in the southern Negev desert would minimise
the dangers of nuclear fallout in the area “should it be targeted by
missiles from as far away as Iran”.

[Cribtop]

I think the more interesting question is Israel. They're in a very tough spot, as arguably the Israeli geopolitical position has degraded in the past five plus years. If we take them at their word that they will strike, it becomes a very interesting question of whether to do so before or after the US elections. I also have a hunch that the IDF knows of its limited capabilities at the ranges we're taking about, and thus that they have something a little more interesting up their sleeves than "fly a bunch of F-16s over the desert and hope they hit everything."

I don't think Iran can close the Straits for more than 48 hours, but they have many other options than that as pointed out in this thread. Scary times we live in.

[Lcp Purcell]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


a very large, very young, very unemployed male population which can't get brides unless something changes. This is a nation which lost circa one million men in a fruitless war against Iraq. Human wave attacks. And the economy, post-Shah, was relatively much stronger than it is now after decades of mismanagement. Men without women do really stupid things. Men without women infused with religious fervor, a sectarian fervor which teaches martyrdom and has been repressed since the seventh century, are extra dangerous.

Hmm it's been my experience that poor people get married quicker than the upwardly mobile... so I was going challenge it, but as it turns out you are dead on right about the marriage rates

http://dornsife.usc.edu/conferences/ira ... 9_1_09.pdf

[Encircled]

One thing that the "Arab Spring" has surely taught us is that undemocratic dictatorships (or theocracies in all likelihood) will eventually fall.

Why risk war when it will more than likely happen anyway?

[Lcp Purcell]

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Why risk war when it will more than likely happen anyway?

Why is a political question my answer would only start fights, but as US87891, put it before he deleted the post, a professional military does not set policy they enact it. The question is I wanted to propose to this board, is not why, but how do we do it.

The first article I found interesting because it read like a AAR, and outline some of the plans for the opening days of the War, another article which may be more important comes from a series which premise is that geography is the dominate factor in setting a nations foreign policy.

7/14/2008
THE GEOPOLITICS OF IRAN:Holding the Center of a Mountain Fortress
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84981666/Stra ... ca-de-Iran

[Schanilec]

Facinating stuff boys. I'm listening.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

I think the more interesting question is Israel. They're in a very tough spot, as arguably the Israeli geopolitical position has degraded in the past five plus years. If we take them at their word that they will strike, it becomes a very interesting question of whether to do so before or after the US elections. I also have a hunch that the IDF knows of its limited capabilities at the ranges we're taking about, and thus that they have something a little more interesting up their sleeves than "fly a bunch of F-16s over the desert and hope they hit everything."

Can't get into this without going political. But it's an interesting question of what we owe a close ally when our means and ends differ so dramatically.

I don't think Iran can close the Straits for more than 48 hours, but they have many other options than that as pointed out in this thread. Scary times we live in.

They don't need to close them to close them. Insurance does that for longer than 48 hours. Capabilities are a great deal different on both sides since Praying Mantis.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lcp Purcell

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


a very large, very young, very unemployed male population which can't get brides unless something changes. This is a nation which lost circa one million men in a fruitless war against Iraq. Human wave attacks. And the economy, post-Shah, was relatively much stronger than it is now after decades of mismanagement. Men without women do really stupid things. Men without women infused with religious fervor, a sectarian fervor which teaches martyrdom and has been repressed since the seventh century, are extra dangerous.

Hmm it's been my experience that poor people get married quicker than the upwardly mobile... so I was going challenge it, but as it turns out you are dead on right about the marriage rates

http://dornsife.usc.edu/conferences/ira ... 9_1_09.pdf

This paper is from 2009 and uses older data. Things have gotten dramatically worse for Iranian young people in the past two years under sanctions. They have an unsustainable unemployment rate, one of the youngest populations is in the world due to social effects after the Iran-Iraq War, and a culture which requires the male to show ability to support a wife before he can seriously court. It's a powder keg.

[Lcp Purcell]

This paper is from 2009 and uses older data. Things have gotten dramatically worse for Iranian young people in the past two years under sanctions. They have an unsustainable unemployment rate, one of the youngest populations is in the world due to social effects after the Iran-Iraq War, and a culture which requires the male to show ability to support a wife before he can seriously court. It's a powder keg.

Ok I am with you on this now, eek nationmasters says

Armed forces personnel 513,000 [8th of 166]
Manpower > Availability > Males age 15-49 .... 20,343,100 [X(] [X(] [15th of 175]

Service age and obligation
19 years of age for compulsory military service; 16 years of age for volunteers; 17 years of age for Law Enforcement Forces; 15 years of age for Basij Forces (Popular Mobilization Army); conscript military service obligation - 18 months; women exempt from military service

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ir- ... l-military

traditional a nation in total war can mobilize no more than 10% of their population Germany in WWII broke that rule, Iran might be able to as well. And their total population is 70 million.

[The Gnome]

Not sure if many of you know, former Doobie Brothers guitarist, Jeff "Skunk" Baxter is now a leading defense analyst. Here is a talk he gave on the future of intelligence, and covers Iran in parts of it. It's really an interesting hour long talk on a lot of different levels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GRkCyvIz70