James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608 
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Jan 5, 2019 19:23:25 GMT
In late 2011, the FBI arrested two Iranian nationals and charged them with plotting a terror attack in Washington. The FBI name for the plot was 'red coalition': that was not the name (if any) that its plotters had. The terror attack was to kill the Saudi ambassador as well as blow up both the Saudi & Israeli embassies. The ambassador was the main target and he was to be killed with a bomb in a Washington restaurant. The pair of embassies were secondary targets. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Iran_assassination_plot ) Let's say that the plot turns into action... Bombing that restaurant would kill and wound people there, innocents aplenty among them. Hitting the embassies would be harder so a pair of truck bombs (?) would probably have to be used as both are well-protected. More innocent lives in the way. Actual success with these attacks, killing the ambassador & hitting the embassies, would be difficult. If the attacks work or not, they'll still kill and maim many. What comes in response? War? |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,985
Likes: 49,390
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 5, 2019 19:29:18 GMT
In late 2011, the FBI arrested two Iranian nationals and charged them with plotting a terror attack in Washington. The FBI name for the plot was 'red coalition': that was not the name (if any) that its plotters had. The terror attack was to kill the Saudi ambassador as well as blow up both the Saudi & Israeli embassies. The ambassador was the main target and he was to be killed with a bomb in a Washington restaurant. The pair of embassies were secondary targets. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Iran_assassination_plot ) Let's say that the plot turns into action... Bombing that restaurant would kill and wound people there, innocents aplenty among them. Hitting the embassies would be harder so a pair of truck bombs (?) would probably have to be used as both are well-protected. More innocent lives in the way. Actual success with these attacks, killing the ambassador & hitting the embassies, would be difficult. If the attacks work or not, they'll still kill and maim many. What comes in response? War? Saudi Arabia and Israeli would be pissed of mega, it would result in war ore very bad time in the Middle East. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Jan 5, 2019 19:38:30 GMT
In late 2011, the FBI arrested two Iranian nationals and charged them with plotting a terror attack in Washington. The FBI name for the plot was 'red coalition': that was not the name (if any) that its plotters had. The terror attack was to kill the Saudi ambassador as well as blow up both the Saudi & Israeli embassies. The ambassador was the main target and he was to be killed with a bomb in a Washington restaurant. The pair of embassies were secondary targets. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Iran_assassination_plot ) Let's say that the plot turns into action... Bombing that restaurant would kill and wound people there, innocents aplenty among them. Hitting the embassies would be harder so a pair of truck bombs (?) would probably have to be used as both are well-protected. More innocent lives in the way. Actual success with these attacks, killing the ambassador & hitting the embassies, would be difficult. If the attacks work or not, they'll still kill and maim many. What comes in response? War? Saudi Arabia and Israeli would be pissed of mega, it would result in war ore very bad time in the Middle East. I was thinking more of American civilian casualties. You're correct with the two others, but a trio of bombings in Washington and their effects were what I was considering. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,985
Likes: 49,390
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 5, 2019 19:43:21 GMT
Saudi Arabia and Israeli would be pissed of mega, it would result in war ore very bad time in the Middle East. I was thinking more of American civilian casualties. You're correct with the two others, but a trio of bombings in Washington and their effects were what I was considering. We are going to see air strikes on Iran by both, but i do wonder if Saudi Arabia will want to work directly with Israel in this. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Jan 5, 2019 23:07:32 GMT
I was thinking more of American civilian casualties. You're correct with the two others, but a trio of bombings in Washington and their effects were what I was considering. We are going to see air strikes on Iran by both, but i do wonder if Saudi Arabia will want to work directly with Israel in this.
Not openly but possibly something behind the scene say. Also its going to heat up the tension in Iraq as Sunni/Shia relations won't be helped.
Can't see any way there would be any deal on the Iranian nuclear programme under those circumstances.
I wonder if the Republicans would seek to present Obama as weak in the elections in 2012 - fear of which might make him take a harder line than otherwise with Iran - or would people rally around the flag and he gets a bigger majority than OTL?
|
|
|
|
Post by Anchises on Jan 6, 2019 23:58:25 GMT
We are going to see air strikes on Iran by both, but i do wonder if Saudi Arabia will want to work directly with Israel in this.
Not openly but possibly something behind the scene say. Also its going to heat up the tension in Iraq as Sunni/Shia relations won't be helped.
Can't see any way there would be any deal on the Iranian nuclear programme under those circumstances.
I wonder if the Republicans would seek to present Obama as weak in the elections in 2012 - fear of which might make him take a harder line than otherwise with Iran - or would people rally around the flag and he gets a bigger majority than OTL?
A massive terror attack on mainland CONUS would probably help the Republicans. Portraying Obama as weak and decrying his failed Middle Eastern policies would be really easy. As for geostrategic consequences: There are certainly enough Hawks, who would prefer a military intervention, I really doubt that it would happen though. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Jan 7, 2019 11:54:33 GMT
Not openly but possibly something behind the scene say. Also its going to heat up the tension in Iraq as Sunni/Shia relations won't be helped.
Can't see any way there would be any deal on the Iranian nuclear programme under those circumstances.
I wonder if the Republicans would seek to present Obama as weak in the elections in 2012 - fear of which might make him take a harder line than otherwise with Iran - or would people rally around the flag and he gets a bigger majority than OTL?
A massive terror attack on mainland CONUS would probably help the Republicans. Portraying Obama as weak and decrying his failed Middle Eastern policies would be really easy. As for geostrategic consequences: There are certainly enough Hawks, who would prefer a military intervention, I really doubt that it would happen though. So no bombs nor boots into Tehran? |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Jan 7, 2019 15:32:42 GMT
A massive terror attack on mainland CONUS would probably help the Republicans. Portraying Obama as weak and decrying his failed Middle Eastern policies would be really easy. As for geostrategic consequences: There are certainly enough Hawks, who would prefer a military intervention, I really doubt that it would happen though. So no bombs nor boots into Tehran?
Probably no boots as the attack is markedly smaller than the twin towers and the US is a lot more cautious after Afghanistan and Iraq but very likely bombs/missiles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anchises on Jan 7, 2019 15:55:40 GMT
So no bombs nor boots into Tehran?
Probably no boots as the attack is markedly smaller than the twin towers and the US is a lot more cautious after Afghanistan and Iraq but very likely bombs/missiles.
Agreed. The political climate simply isn't suitable for military actions above the level of retaliatory air raids. For boots on the ground Iran would need to make critical mistakes. Threatening the flow of oil through the Gulf or something of that magnitude. |
|
forcon
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 988
Likes: 1,739
|
Post by forcon on Jan 7, 2019 16:52:52 GMT
I could definitely see punitive airstrikes. I don't see how the Administration could get away with not doing that TBH. Iran might go down the Assad route of accepting the strikes, or could hit back with ASMs and closing the Strait of Hormuz. I think the former is more likely than the latter as an immediate response. Should they actually sink an American vessel, I would think the U.S. would hit back hard and it would possibly escalate to a full-scale war, with the USN going after Iranian Navy bases and the Iranians closing the Strait, the US hitting targets across Iran from the air, the Iranians launching missiles at US forces in the Middle East, etc
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Jan 8, 2019 14:02:58 GMT
I could definitely see punitive airstrikes. I don't see how the Administration could get away with not doing that TBH. Iran might go down the Assad route of accepting the strikes, or could hit back with ASMs and closing the Strait of Hormuz. I think the former is more likely than the latter as an immediate response. Should they actually sink an American vessel, I would think the U.S. would hit back hard and it would possibly escalate to a full-scale war, with the USN going after Iranian Navy bases and the Iranians closing the Strait, the US hitting targets across Iran from the air, the Iranians launching missiles at US forces in the Middle East, etc Targets for such possible air strikes? |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Jan 8, 2019 14:58:09 GMT
I could definitely see punitive airstrikes. I don't see how the Administration could get away with not doing that TBH. Iran might go down the Assad route of accepting the strikes, or could hit back with ASMs and closing the Strait of Hormuz. I think the former is more likely than the latter as an immediate response. Should they actually sink an American vessel, I would think the U.S. would hit back hard and it would possibly escalate to a full-scale war, with the USN going after Iranian Navy bases and the Iranians closing the Strait, the US hitting targets across Iran from the air, the Iranians launching missiles at US forces in the Middle East, etc Targets for such possible air strikes?
Might depend on the circumstances. They could hit purely military targets or possibly economic ones as well to put pressure on the Iranian economy. Might also try and take out some of their nuclear facilities but that could be risky politically if it leads to literal fall-out given the taboo in the west especially against anything to do with nukes.
|
|
forcon
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 988
Likes: 1,739
|
Post by forcon on Jan 8, 2019 15:19:57 GMT
I could definitely see punitive airstrikes. I don't see how the Administration could get away with not doing that TBH. Iran might go down the Assad route of accepting the strikes, or could hit back with ASMs and closing the Strait of Hormuz. I think the former is more likely than the latter as an immediate response. Should they actually sink an American vessel, I would think the U.S. would hit back hard and it would possibly escalate to a full-scale war, with the USN going after Iranian Navy bases and the Iranians closing the Strait, the US hitting targets across Iran from the air, the Iranians launching missiles at US forces in the Middle East, etc Targets for such possible air strikes? IRCG bases for one; I have no idea about their structure but a few barracks could be taken out I'm sure. Probably Mehrabad Airport as well, as a larger and more symbolic target. Another one could be the headquarters of the Iranian intelligence services, defence ministry buildings. Probably cruise missiles from ships and B1s and/or B-52s out over the Indian Ocean, and direct raids over Iranian airspace by B-2s and F-22s.
|
|
