Day One - The War with Iran

FreeAsia2000

Junior Member
How realistic is the scenario below ? It was written by usaf veteran

Day One -
The War With Iran

By Douglas Herman
A Rense.com Exclusive
1-9-5

The war began as planned. The Israeli pilots took off well before dawn and streaked across Lebanon and northern Iraq, high above Kirkuk. Flying US-made F-15 and F-16s, the Israelis separated over the mountains of western Iran, the pilots gesturing a last minute show of confidence in their mission, maintaining radio silence.

Just before the sun rose over Tehran, moments before the Muslim call to prayer, the missiles struck their targets. While US Air Force AWACS planes circled overhead--listening, watching, recording--heavy US bombers followed minutes later. Bunker-busters and mini-nukes fell on dozens of targets while Iranian anti-aircraft missiles sped skyward.

The ironically named Bushehr nuclear power plant crumbled to dust. Russian technicians and foreign nationals scurried for safety. Most did not make it.

Targets in Saghand and Yazd, all of them carefully chosen many months before by Pentagon planners, were destroyed. The uranium enrichment facility in Natanz; a heavy water plant and radioisotope facility in Arak; the Ardekan Nuclear Fuel Unit; the Uranium Conversion Facility and Nuclear Technology Center in Isfahan; were struck simultaneously by USAF and Israeli bomber groups.

The Tehran Nuclear Research Center, the Tehran Molybdenum, Iodine and Xenon Radioisotope Production Facility, the Tehran Jabr Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Laboratories, the Kalaye Electric Company in the Tehran suburbs were destroyed.

Iranian fighter jets rose in scattered groups. At least those Iranian fighter planes that had not been destroyed on the ground by swift and systematic air strikes from US and Israeli missiles. A few Iranian fighters even launched missiles, downing the occasional attacker, but American top guns quickly prevailed in the ensuing dogfights.

The Iranian air force, like the Iranian navy, never really knew what hit them. Like the slumbering US sailors at Pearl Harbor, the pre-dawn, pre-emptive attack wiped out fully half the Iranian defense forces in a matter of hours.

By mid-morning, the second and third wave of US/Israeli raiders screamed over the secondary targets. The only problem now, the surprising effectiveness of the Iranian missile defenses. The element of surprise lost, US and Israeli warplanes began to fall from the skies in considerable numbers to anti-aircraft fire.

At 7:35 AM, Tehran time, the first Iranian anti-ship missile destroyed a Panamanian oil tanker, departing from Kuwait and bound for Houston. Launched from an Iranian fighter plane, the Exocet split the ship in half and set the ship ablaze in the Strait of Hormuz. A second and third tanker followed, black smoke billowing from the broken ships before they blew up and sank. By 8:15 AM, all ship traffic on the Persian Gulf had ceased.

US Navy ships, ordered earlier into the relative safety of the Indian Ocean, south of their base in Bahrain, launched counter strikes. Waves of US fighter planes circled the burning wrecks in the bottleneck of Hormuz but the Iranian fighters had fled.

At 9 AM, Eastern Standard Time, many hours into the war, CNN reported a squadron of suicide Iranian fighter jets attacking the US Navy fleet south of Bahrain. Embedded reporters aboard the ships--sending live feeds directly to a rapt audience of Americans just awakening--reported all of the Iranian jets destroyed, but not before the enemy planes launched dozens of Exocet and Sunburn anti-ship missiles. A US aircraft carrier, cruiser and two destroyers suffered direct hits. The cruiser blew up and sank, killing 600 men. The aircraft carrier sank an hour later.

By mid-morning, every military base in Iran was partially or wholly destroyed. Sirens blared and fires blazed from hundreds of fires. Explosions rocked Tehran and the electrical power failed. The Al Jazeerah news station in Tehran took a direct hit from a satellite bomb, leveling the entire block.

At 9:15 AM, Baghdad time, the first Iranian missile struck the Green Zone. For the next thirty minutes a torrent of missiles landed on GPS coordinates carefully selected by Shiite militiamen with cell phones positioned outside the Green Zone and other permanent US bases. Although US and Israeli bomber pilots had destroyed 90% of the Iranian missiles, enough Shahabs remained to fully destroy the Green Zone, the Baghdad airport, and a US Marine base. Thousands of unsuspecting US soldiers died in the early morning barrage. Not surprisingly, CNN and Fox withheld the great number of casualties from American viewers.

By 9:30 AM, gas stations on the US east coast began to raise their prices. Slowly at first and then altogether in a panic, the prices rose. $4 a gallon, and then $5 and then $6, the prices skyrocketed. Worried motorists, rushing from work, roared into the nearest gas station, radios blaring the latest reports of the pre-emptive attack on Iran. While fistfights broke out in gas stations everywhere, the third Middle Eastern war had begun.

In Washington DC, the spin began minutes after the first missile struck its intended target. The punitive strike--not really a war said the harried White House spokesman--would further democracy and peace in the Middle East. Media pundits mostly followed the party line. By ridding Iran of weapons of mass destruction, Donald Rumsfeld declared confidently on CNN, Iran might follow in the footsteps of Iraq, and enjoy the hard won fruits of freedom.

The president scheduled a speech at 2 PM. Gas prices rose another two dollars before then. China and Japan threatened to dump US dollars. Gold rose $120 an ounce. The dollar plummeted against the Euro.

CNN reported violent, anti-American protests in Paris, London, Rome, Berlin and Dublin. Fast food franchises throughout Europe, carrying American corporate logos, were firebombed.

A violent coup toppled the pro-American Pakistan president. On the New York Stock Exchange, prices fell in a frenzy of trading--except for the major petroleum producers. A single, Iranian Shahab missile struck Tel Aviv, destroying an entire city block. Israel vowed revenge, and threatened a nuclear strike on Tehran, before a hastily called UN General Assembly in New York City eased tensions.

An orange alert in New York City suddenly reddened to a full-scale terror alarm when a package detonated on a Manhattan subway. Mayor Bloomberg declared martial law. Governor Pataki ordered the New York National Guard fully mobilized, mobilizing what few national guardsmen remained in the state.

President Bush looked shaken at 2 PM. The scroll below the TV screen reported Persian Gulf nations halting production of oil until the conflict could be resolved peacefully. Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, announced a freeze in oil deliveries to the US would begin immediately. Tony Blair offered to mediate peace negotiations, between the US and Israel and Iran, but was resoundingly rejected.

By 6 PM, Eastern Standard Time, gas prices had stabilized at just below $10 a gallon. A Citgo station in Texas, near Fort Sam Houston Army base, was firebombed. No one claimed responsibility. Terrorism was not ruled out.

At sunset, the call to prayer--in Tehran, Baghdad, Islamabad, Ankara, Jerusalem, Jakarta, Riyadh--sounded uncannily like the buzzing of enraged bees.

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

USAF veteran, Douglas Herman correctly predicted the aftermath of the attack on Iraq in his column: Shock & Awe Followed by Block-To-Block. A Rense contributer, he is the author of The Guns of Dallas, available at Amazon.com. Contact him at [email protected].

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Well first of all, i will allow this topic live, but under great survellance. I wanr everyone right away, we don't allow political BS and countrybashing comments. So please remember when making your post; just stick on the military aspect of it....


But to the point. Is this scenario realistic? Not my obinion, tough it's one of the better ones that i've come agross. Good thing is the invicibility of the west is cut to minium which is usually very evident in these kind of things. But it's main proplem is the timeframe. It has the similar proplem that the famous 24 tv-serie: Too much happens in one day and they make us belive that all the operational results can be analysed in mere of minutes and then act on bases of those. Scale of this size simply just wont allow so much happening in just one day. There should be more chaos in both sides.
Also the use of tactical nuclear weapons is bit farfecthed. Does someone seriosly think that US would use nuclear weapons at the same time justificating the whole war to do the opposite, mean deactivate Irans nukes? And then to expect foreing approval?
 

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
I was under impression no iranian aircraft had the ability to carry sunburns. even if you do the software and wiring work, that thing weighs 4 tons. But maybe it's doable, please provide some info on it.
 

Tommy Gun

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Hi Guys,

I have been reading your forums for quite some time, and find them very interesting. Its amazing reading posts, opinions etc from you all. Very professional and very tactful

In response to your post, i have had some thoughts.

I dont think the US Budget deficit, the US people, or the logistics of the US Militery are in any position to open a second front in Iran. A conventional ground war would be too costly in $$$ and Human resources.

I think that if any measure of Force is taken against Iran, it would be done as US / UK / French / Israel Special forces units taking out key
stratigic nuclear sites ONLY and maybe certain political personel. Then (maybe) using Bombers to mop up what was missed.


My reasoning for this is....

If Iran gets bombed back to the stone age, it will hurt the people of Iran directly, which as we see in Iraq causes more insurgents and would be Terrorists. its not going to happen. Anti western hatered is the last thing anyone needs.

Conventional ground forces would not be an option, for the same reasons above.

At the moment, from my understanding, the objective here is to curb the nuclear ambitions of Iran, that means the islamist goverment and its nuclear facilitys only.
If i remember correctly, hasnt Israel allready done something similar to this ? where they sent in bombers against a nuclear facility in Iraq or Iran ? 15 ish years ago ?

That is what i would expect to happen again, if anything.

There is just one problem,

im not completly sure on how this works, and its based on a few assumptions,

Am I right in thinking that any US President can be in office for a maximum of 2 consecutive tearms ?
Is the current US President allready in his second term in Office ?

If true, then we have a possible wildcard here, A president that knows he will not be in office again, and this is the last few years of his leadership.

In this situation, knowing that you did not have another election to loose, might change the above picture of no ground forces being used.

(( Debate for a diffrent forum i think ))
 

FreeAsia2000

Junior Member
Could the su-24's be modified to carry Sunburns ? You're right the Sunburns weigh more than 4 tonnes

I think it's more likely the Iranians will use land based or ship based platforms.

What about the Yakhonts ?

Also I don't think Russia will be able to resist the opportunity to test any new potential anti-stealth weapons systems

Hmm we could add a bit more chaos in the scenario...how about mass uprisings in the Gulf states by shi'ites ? or possibly the Taleban or Al-Qaida announce an alliance with Iran ? (a bit far-fetched given how much they oppose each other but still possible ) I don't think America needs to use tactical nukes against Iran.

How would America deal with humman wave assaults by Shi'ites and Sunni's in Iraq co-ordinated with artillery/missile fire from Iran ?...how about the tens of thousands of American soldiers which will be captured and disappear in Afghanistan and Iraq ?

How would Syria deal with an attack given that Iran and Syria have a defence pact ?
 
Last edited:

utelore

Junior Member
VIP Professional
First I dont think israel will be involved in this. second it will not be carried out by nonstealth aircraft which could be shot down.

I do think the attack on the green zone will occur and shipping would be attacked with some success. Isreal will take hits from Missiles but will not respond. The U.S may have to counter some sort of Iranian attack in the south towards Basra.

But check this out. IF I WERE IRAN. Why wait for somthing you know is coming in the next 6 months. Why not launch its own pre-emptive attack against U.S forces. In Iraq I could not believe Saddam just sat there and let the U.S build up combat power without striking first. One thing about the U.S is that it realy telegraphs its punches on the opposing country via MEDIA. Iran has to see this coming because it is. Bush needs to have this all wrapped up WELL before election just incase it goes south. So I realy think this is all going to go down sometime this year.....cheers ute. PS I also think it has allready started with the decapitation strike against The Rev gaurd command structure that was just killed.
 

FreeAsia2000

Junior Member
utelore said:
First I dont think israel will be involved in this. second it will not be carried out by nonstealth aircraft which could be shot down.

I do think the attack on the green zone will occur and shipping would be attacked with some success. Isreal will take hits from Missiles but will not respond. The U.S may have to counter some sort of Iranian attack in the south towards Basra.

But check this out. IF I WERE IRAN. Why wait for somthing you know is coming in the next 6 months. Why not launch its own pre-emptive attack against U.S forces. In Iraq I could not believe Saddam just sat there and let the U.S build up combat power without striking first. One thing about the U.S is that it realy telegraphs its punches on the opposing country via MEDIA. Iran has to see this coming because it is. Bush needs to have this all wrapped up WELL before election just incase it goes south. So I realy think this is all going to go down sometime this year.....cheers ute. PS I also think it has allready started with the decapitation strike against The Rev gaurd command structure that was just killed.

Well ute you've surprised me ! I actually agree with some of your post :)

I agree. There seems little purpose to Israel carrying out this attack since everybody is going to implicate America. However how about if Karzai gives Israel the go-ahead to launch an attack via Afghanistan ?

I don't believe Iran will launch a pre-emptive attack simply because time is on the Iranians side. On the other hand America really needs to invade this year to resolve all outstanding issues which is why this time maybe they are not going the UN route.

However you hit the nail on the head regarding the de-capitation. It's interesting how many senior members have been killed in air 'accidents' recently. Totally agree with you. I think if the Iranians come to the same conclusion expect a response soon.

O
 

akinkhoo

Junior Member
i don't see why iran should not be allow to have a nuclear facility while US and UK is commissing an entire new series for nuclear ICBM. it just seem so unfair to demand against nuke while no move is made by the demanding parties to reduce their own stockpile.

:confused:

there are a few things i disagree on:

1. china and japan are unlikely to dump US dollar on large scale, you know how much money US government own them in bonds? if they take back only what is left of the money, their own currency will be destabilized.

2. any country that don't sell oil will get visited by uncle sam. :D oh, with his stick! beside, can they even survive without selling oil? not like they have much of an economy, all the oil worker will surely go on strike against their government unless they continue to get paid, i don't see how oil producer can keep oil line close for long without drying their own pockets.

3. what is the objective of the air strike? if it was just after a few critical static target (eg. nuke factility), won't cruise missile be more effective and safer?

4. you can't hide a large scale operations, the russian spy sateilles (observing the airbases) would have seen it coming, and they will pull out. and the iranian would suppect something from their moves.

5. Iran is not Iraq.

6. terrorist doesn't strike at will, they are highly organised and plan many months before they attack a target. this is true for both eastern and western terrorist cells.

i don't think so, but it is an interesting scenario; if the attack was more realistic and have proper objective.
 

FreeAsia2000

Junior Member
Please note BEFORE posting

This is a scenario which starts with Day One of a attack.

It's not about WHETHER there will be an attack or the reasons WHY there should/shouldn't be one.

Please post articles concerned strictly with the military strategy/tactics/operational matters ONLY.

cheers

sorry if i sound a bit harsh but i'm trying to follow Goll's advice :)
and avoid :nono:
 

crazyinsane105

Junior Member
VIP Professional
I am trying to find an article that I read several months ago confirming that Iran had upgraded their Kilo class subs to carry Sunburns. Along with the wave homing torpedoes, those subs can cause a lot of headaches for the US navy.

Utelore, I totally agree with you. Saddam was an idiot for not attacking first. Iran would also be stupid in not doing so, but let's just say they didn't attack first. I do have problems with this one day scenario. Let me start:

Iran is making large defense aquisitions (the Tor-M1 purhcase, for example). The reason I said the author is smoking something is because he is exaggeration almost everything. Iran's military is fully aware that an attack can take place any day now. Above that, Iran's military is conducting more and more practices in the country. It looks like they are obviously preparing for something. Wiping out Iran's air force would be no problem and their navy would be finished, but going after their Kilos which are equipped with wave-homing torpedoes and Sunburns is not going to be easy. Above that, the US is not at all going to be able to destroy a fraction of Iran's anti-ship missiles or its ballistic missile arsenal. That being said, a Shahab alone cannot destroy once city block. Also, Iran's air defense system has both proven (SA-3 and SA-6) and newer systems (S-300 and upcoming SA-15). Iran could play with the Americans just like the Serbians did with NATO aircraft. That way, surgical strikes would be much less effective. And unless the Americans withdraw from Iraq, a strike against Iran won't happen.

Why the author thinks Musharraf will fall is beyond me. Iran has almost no influence in Pakistan and an attack against Iran won't make Musharraf fall. Seriously, people have been saying this crap for ages. When Afghanistan was attacked, Musharraf would fall. When Iraq was attacked, Musharraf was going to fall. When the AQ Khan scandle erupted, Musharraf would fall. When the fighting in Warizstan began, Musharraf would fall. Get my point? Musharraf isn't going to fall anytime soon.

A strike against Iran would make the US much weaker. Iran's strength will come in asymetrical warfare, not conventional warfare. Just send in hundreds of heavily armed men to ambush American soldiers in Iraq (and make sure these men have anti-tank missiles, anti-air missiles, etc.) That would be Iran's response. And Iran wouldn't just have to respond in Iraq. Remember, they have Hezbollah, a VERY DANGEROUS organization. They can respond with terror attacks all across the globe. So yeah, that's my two cents.
 
Top