Safe Mode: On
Pentagon encircles Iran: Victory would take 3 weeks

As the US beefs up its military presence in the Persian Gulf region,
Pentagon strategists estimate that they would need less than a month to
defeat Iranian forces should a military conflict take place.
US Central Command (CENTCOM) believes it can destroy or significantly
degrade Iran's conventional armed forces in about three weeks using air
and sea strikes, a defense source told The Washington Post. “We plan for any eventuality we can and provide options to the president,” Army Lt. Col. T.G. Taylor, a spokesman at CENTCOM told the newspaper. “We
take our guidance from the secretary of defense and from our civilian
bosses in [Washington] DC. So any kind of guidance they give us, that’s
what we go off of [sic].”The American military has been building up its presence in the region amid rising tension in the area.

The US Navy currently has two aircraft carriers deployed near Iran and is upgrading mine-detection and removal capabilities.

The
US Air Force recently dispatched a number of F-22 Raptor strike
fighters to a base in the United Arab Emirates. The move caused backlash
from Tehran, which said Wednesday it threatened regional stability.Deploying
a “floating base” in the Persian Gulf – a converted transport ship that
would serve as a semi-stationary base of operations for the US military
– is also on the table. USS Ponce is expected to host mine-sweeping
helicopters, speed boats and probably commando teams.The Pentagon
has also intensified training of elite troops of its allies in the
region. The members of the Joint Special Operations Task Force-Gulf
Cooperation Council commando team, who serve as instructors, may be
ordered to go into the field as well, should such a need arise.The
measures are taken as contingency for possible attack by Iran on US
troops or blocking of the Strait of Hormuz, the vital oil transit route,
the US says.CENTCOM says there are about 125,000 US troops in
close proximity to Iran. The majority of them – 90,000 – are deployed in
or around Afghanistan. Some 20,000 soldiers are ashore elsewhere in the
Near East region; and a variable 15,000 to 20,000 serve on naval
vessels.Oil battlefrontThe military threat is just part
of the mounting pressure on Tehran. Washington says it would use force
only as a measure of last resort and is instead focusing on economic
pressure.On Tuesday, US President Barack Obama signed an order
giving the Treasury Department more power to impose financial sanctions
against those trading with Iran."Treasury now has the
capability to publicly identify foreign individuals and entities that
have engaged in these evasive and deceptive activities, and generally
bar access to the US financial and commercial systems," the department said in a statement. The
US and the EU have issued a ban on buying Iran-produced crude in a bid
to cripple the country’s export-dependent economy. Part of this effort
involves sanctions against companies and institutions engaged in the oil
trade with Iran financially. They are banks transferring payment for
the crude or firms insuring tankers transporting Iranian oil.The
Iranian oil industry is not suffering from sanctions alone. The
country’s Oil Ministry reported last week that it had finally managed to
contain a cyber attack on the industry’s facilities.“The software attack has been fully contained and controlled with the help of experts three days after it was hit,” Iran’s deputy oil minister for engineering affairs, Hamdollah Mohammadnejad, told the state-run Mehr news agency.

In
2010 a malicious computer worm called Stuxnet damaged computer software
at Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities. Some computer security experts
said the malware was the work of a highly-professional hacker team,
which was probably provided with know-how by US or Israeli governments.Western
countries and Israel suspect Iran of trying to build a nuclear bomb and
are pressuring it to stop enrichment of uranium. Tehran insists it is
pursuing a civilian nuclear power program only, which it is entitled to
do as a sovereign state. The row has escalated last year after
the publication of a controversial report by UN’s nuclear watchdog,
which Iran’s opponents used to justify issuing more sanctions.


http://rt.com/news/us-military-presence-iran-419/


Added: May-4-2012 Occurred On: May-4-2012
By: mutterfudder
In:
Iran
Tags: Military, Middle East, Politics, Iran, War
Marked as: approved
Views: 1143 | Comments: 68 | Votes: 2 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • Cleanup would take ten years... THAT'S THE BITCH!

    Those who fail to learn the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them.

    Posted May-4-2012 By 

    (5)

    • @2DLISH2QUIT
      Wrong.All we need to do is occupy the Oil Fields and the shipping ports, Destroy infrastructure like powerplants, dams, water facilities,etc.seal off the rest of the country from imports and travel, and let them all starve.

      Posted May-4-2012 By 

      (1)

    • @grunt

      I'm sure you'll sign up for ten years worth of tours, grunt

      Posted May-4-2012 By 

      (1)

    • @grunt a bit cynical are we?

      Posted May-4-2012 By 

      (1)

    • @LimitedTime
      I enlisted in the Marine Infantry in 79 because of Iran, and I know exactly what Islamic Islamization and Jihad are, just like I know what Socialism really is. I knew that before I enlisted, and that's why I did it.
      See, I was raised correctly at home and had a honest and truthful education in schools.

      Posted May-4-2012 By 

      (1)

    • @2DLISH2QUIT
      Not that I am disagreeing with learning from past experience, but be very careful about sweeping cliches as is they are always profound and inarguable truism. Don't confuse them.

      Posted May-4-2012 By 

      (2)

  • Comment of user 'Rollerswartz' has been deleted by author!
    • @Rollerswartz
      Considering in 3 weeks we were sleeping in all of Saddam's palaces we did win. By normal standards against a normal enemy we did win in 3 weeks.
      But Islamist aren't "normal". They are a insane ideology, and we must stop them to death everywhere. It may be a war we can never win. But we sure can lose.

      Posted May-4-2012 By 

      (2)

  • three weeks!? I would guess that includes the clean up as well

    Posted May-4-2012 By 

    (5)

    • @k-doe Heh, possibly. I don't think complete security and rebuild are ever in the plans. Just the military battles/strategy.

      It's like having a house fire. You call the FD, the come and put out the fire whether the house completely burns down or not. They pick up their stuff and leave. There is a whole other part to that fire, the home owner has to pick up, clean-up and rebuild, not to mention just the hard task of getting back to a normal life.

      Posted May-4-2012 By 

      (4)

    • @LimitedTime
      The Humanitarian efforts just are inept. The US military doesn't know how to fight an unseen foe, that doesn't play by their rules. The rules of engagement placed on our military are completely ludicrous considering the enemy. We will never win in Afghanistan. It's not that we can't... our soldiers are strong, our technology is strong.... but our rules do not allow the full effectiveness of either.

      Instead, our soldiers are placed in a mentally descructive, stressful, inner-b More..

      Posted May-4-2012 By 

      (3)

    • @LimitedTime Amen brother.

      Posted May-4-2012 By 

      (2)

  • That sounds about right. Their outdated military would not stand a chance in hell. Conventionally speaking.

    Posted May-4-2012 By 

    (4)

  • 10 Years in Afghan with no result, how the fuck can these idiots say three weeks for Iran ?

    Posted May-4-2012 By 

    (3)

    • @royal45 They don't expect an insurgancy like Iraq or Afghanistan apparently. I don't think that's very smart on their part. Militarily speaking..... military vs military, I'd expect more like a month or two. but just like Iraq (although I hold Iran higher in competency), the military vs military battles will be pretty short.

      It always the insurgancy (extreme muslim-bred) that creates a problem. Our military brass and our politicians do not know how to play by the adversaries rules, or are More..

      Posted May-4-2012 By 

      (5)

    • @LimitedTime

      Good points.

      Posted May-4-2012 By 

      (3)

    • @royal45 there are results... the results are alot or very backward people have been killed, the future... well astan is untaped in terms of oil/gas/mineral, if a stable u.s govt can be installed and maintaind there is a hell of a lot of dollar to be had there, and ofcoarse they grow the very best opium, the talib are straight out of the bad-lands of pakistan, the ak govt cant even control its entire own country. if i was incharge of the astan fight, my r.o.e. would be very different. shoot firs More..

      Posted May-4-2012 By 

      (0)

  • The headline coul be misleading to the ignorant. A "victory," if defined in terms of a war victory, would require destroying military forces and occupying the country with troops. I can't think of a single war victory in military history that has not involved taking control of the country on the ground. Anything less is merely a "battle victory." This article, however says it would take three weeks to "destroy or significantly degrade Iran's conventional armed forces.&qu More..

    Posted May-4-2012 By 

    (3)

    • @snaffler EXACTLY.

      Posted May-4-2012 By 

      (0)

    • @snaffler Pretty much the only way to win a war is sheer brutality. I don't understand how we get this notion that a country can peacefully occupy another. I disagree that defeating their army is only part of a battle. If you can defeat and destroy their army without occupying their country and the gov't collapses than i think total victory can be achieved. Much harder to do but a place like Serbia got 78 days of bombing and the military was defeated (mostly) and the gov't collapsed and the lead More..

      Posted May-4-2012 By 

      (1)

    • @snaffler what is realy needed is not a long term occupation, more like a plague of locust;s fly,sail,march in. kill every last mother fucker that has the audacity to stand in the way and fly,sail,march straight the fuck out again. let them then tidy up the mess left in our wake. fuck this rebuilding a country bullshit, didnt see the germans rebuild warsaw did you.

      Posted May-4-2012 By 

      (1)

    • @snaffler
      A victory depends only on the political goal. Therefore occupying ground has absolutely nothing to do with attaining victory conditions unless dictated by operational or tactical requirements.

      In other words, occupying ground is not an absolute requirement for victory. It all depends on what the desired political outcome is. In this case the elimination of Iran's ability to produce nukes.

      Posted May-4-2012 By 

      (1)

  • Let Israel deal with them. They're no threat to US. If their military is that poor that they can be defeated in three weeks, they most certainly aren't the big, bad, scary, boogieman are they? Ohhh, they have/might be building a nuke? So does Pakistan (has nukes) and they were hiding the world's most wanted terrorist!!!

    Meanwhile we have communists staging violent protests on US streets, and the Zeta Cartel in Mexico beheading innocent people just footsteps from our border. But hey, Surviv More..

    Posted May-4-2012 By 

    (3)

    • Comment of user 'RugOutFromUnderYou' has been deleted by author!
    • @RugOutFromUnderYou

      Funny to hear you calling Iran, "Cave Apes".

      Apparently you've no idea about the country, just what you hear. Again, you're someone who is just a follower.......

      Posted May-4-2012 By 

      (1)

    • Comment of user 'RugOutFromUnderYou' has been deleted by author!
  • Comment of user 'RugOutFromUnderYou' has been deleted by author!
  • to beat the iranian military yes, to hold the country no.

    Posted May-4-2012 By 

    (2)

  • That's allwell and good, but we still would have to deal with sneaky Revolutionary Gurads planting bombs and shit,just like Iraq.
    Better to kill them all. Men, women,and children. It's the only way to insure total victory against the fanatical savages.
    Unless they surrender Amadinamonkey, and the Supreme Council, and all appointed and elected Iranian leadershipfor summary justice, then we will just have to starve them all to death.

    Posted May-4-2012 By 

    (2)

    • @grunt I didn't thumb's up your comment based on the kill them all stance, but other than that I completely agree.

      Vietnam seemed to be the beginning of our fight with insurgancy/gorilla warfare as the man fighting tactic it seems. The easy clear cut battles of WWII are gone. Since then, we've had a serious problem coming out on top other than the clear-cut battles. We never lost a battle per say, but the US people have never been up to the task of responding in a manner that would effecti More..

      Posted May-4-2012 By 

      (1)

    • @LimitedTime you mean like massive carpet bombing runs, fire bombing of all city centers, and the general genocide of an entire country?

      Posted May-4-2012 By 

      (3)

    • @fha_dynamo Who are you, Light's twin brother?

      Your forgot the atomic bombs dropped.

      Posted May-4-2012 By 

      (1)

    • @fha_dynamo You forgot all of those poor Japanese soldiers we melted with flame throwers, just becuase they wouldn't come out of their fox holes after we asked them to with M1A Gerand fire.

      Posted May-4-2012 By 

      (3)

    • @fha_dynamo
      Last time we "carpet bombed" really area bombed, cities was WW II. We won that, remember?
      And when we had the long, long overdue 72 Christmas bombing campaign on Hanoi and Haipong we almost got Jane Fonda and Joan Baez. They were cowering in a cellar bomb shelter for days. Interfered with them betraying our POWs and singing for the NVA antiaircraft crews.

      Posted May-4-2012 By 

      (2)

  • heheheheheheh like in Libya two weeks=6 month.Iraq 2003 mission accomplished=2012.Afganistan 2002=?

    Posted May-4-2012 By 

    (1)

    • @Freedomfighter77
      We could do it with nukes in about 2 hours. Who'sgonna goto war with the US and the UK for Iran? Russia? China? No way!

      Posted May-4-2012 By 

      (1)

  • Less than a month is not entirely unrealistic considering they specify conventional armed forces. It would have to be an extremely intense month of warfare though as Iran has a large and relatively high-tech military.

    Posted May-4-2012 By 

    (1)

  • Bullshit.
    How many years ago was "Mission Accomplished" from Bush? It was in 2003 nearly 10 years ago. And Irak is still not "freed".

    Posted May-4-2012 By 

    (1)

  • Comment of user 'DirtyUncleBerty' has been deleted by author!
  • Lol yea right ...

    Just like mission accomplished in Iraq right

    don't make me laugh

    the pentagon are full of fuck heads

    Posted May-5-2012 By 

    (1)