• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Iran Super Thread- Merged

Iran hasn't attacked another country in over 250 years.  Why would they do so now? Especially when they are flanked by US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention a powerful Israel armed with nukes.

When countries face occupation, the creation of resistance groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah is inevitable. If you're looking for someone to point the finger at, look no further than Israel and the US (who support Israel's actions).

Becoming the regional hegemon is everyone's goal. What state doesn't want to thrive?

The currency in which oil is sold has a MASSIVE impact on the US economy because all crude oil is currently sold in USD. That means that any country in the world that wants to purchase petrol must first purchase USD. Basic economics tells us that if the demand is high for a product, either its value will increase OR it's supply can increase causing it's value to remain unchanged. And since the US is monetizing its debt by printing massive amounts of money (increasing supply), it needs an equal massive increase in demand of USD in order to avoid devaluing their dollar (which leads to inflation).  Inflation leads to increased interest rates and increased interest rates means less consumer spending (anyone remember the early 80's?). And since consumer spending represents 70% of US GDP, it becomes quite clear, once you follow the links starting from the currency in which crude oil is sold, why the US believes Iran is such a threat.
I lived through the early 1980's (and the late 1970's as well), so I have seen the effects of economic policies similar to the current administration's. The economic Stagflation of the second half of the 1970's was due to inflationary policies, and the high interest rate environment of the early 1980's was a deliberate attempt to crush inflation. The other half of the equation, which you failed to mention, was the massive tax reductions under President Reagan, which created a huge economic boom. The ultimate effect was an increase in US GDP which equaled the entire GDP of West Germany (considered the economic powerhouse of Europe during that period).

US is dictated by domestic concerns; I doubt President Reagan really gave a lot of thought to the fact that the same high interest rates that were saving the US economy from inflation was also causing the debt service charges in Canada to explode, wiping out then Prime Minister Mulrouney's efforts to contain program spending. Other nations had to deal with similar follow on effects, if the issue was raised the Reagan administration could point to the increasing economic activity, and the US Treasury could simply say "deal with it".

Iranian Republican Guard officers have been captured in Iraq training the AQ in Iraq insurgents, weapons manufactured in Iran have been captured from Taliban fighters in Afghanistan and Iranians are found training and equipping Hamas and Hezbollah (even to the extent of bringing drones and flying them in support of Hezbollah during the recent war between Hezbollah and Isreal on the Lebanese border), so your "Iran hasn't attacked anyone" argument is devoid of merit as well. Take a read of this thread and really study the situation rather than repeating Daily Kos talking points and you might be pretty amazed (and alarmed) by what you find.
Very speculative indeed. Does this explain anything about AQ operations?


Is Osama Bin Laden Enjoying a Safe Haven in Iran?

There is a tantalizing body of circumstantial evidence that the world's number one terrorist is being sheltered by the Islamic regime.
May 6, 2010
- by Ryan Mauro

The average commentator thinks that Osama bin Laden’s trail has gone cold and that there is no credible eyewitness testimony as to where he is located. The only available public testimony is that a member of the Taliban arrested in Pakistan claims his colleague met bin Laden in Afghanistan in the first two months of 2009 — important information, but second-hand and unverifiable. The truth is that there have been credible leads, and these leads point to Iran.

Ken Timmerman, the best reporter covering Iran, provided an update on a story he broke last year. The last credible person to say they’ve met bin Laden is a smuggler who last saw him in October 2007. The smuggler, who said he met him a total of six times in Iran beginning in November 2004, provided Alan Parrot, leader of the Union for the Conservation of Raptors, with the “specific frequencies of small transmitters bin Laden had strapped to the backs of his hunting falcons so he could find them if they failed to return to base.”

When the smuggler claimed that bin Laden was moving from his safe haven in Tehran to the northern part of the country near the border with Turkmenistan in late 2006 for some falconry, Timmerman turned to his intelligence sources for verification. He found out that an intelligence report had been written based on “chatter” that a person of high importance was indeed moving from Tehran to Zahedan, and the hunting fields were shut off to all other guests. Zahedan was identified by the government as the location of an al-Qaeda network last January. The smuggler also said that he met with bin Laden at a safe house north of Tehran, which is similar to reporting from Iranian defectors, and in Mashhad, another location known to be used as a transit by al-Qaeda.

Parrot says that Iran is holding bin Laden’s family hostage in Tehran to stop the terrorist leader from ever revealing their collaboration with al-Qaeda. This also enables the Iranians to exercise greater control over the terrorist group and its leader, giving them a deniable proxy with which to wage asymmetrical warfare against the West, something further enabled by the staunch belief that such an alliance is impossible.

This story may sound unbelievable, but Omar bin Laden, one of Osama’s sons, has said that up to 40 members of the bin Laden family are living under house arrest in Tehran and are refusing to let them leave without being accompanied by the regime’s personnel. They live a lavish lifestyle with videogames, computers, “a swimming pool, tennis court, shopping trips, and horseback riding along the coast” — the same coast that the smuggler identified Osama himself as traveling to for entertainment.

Bin Laden’s 18-year-old daughter escaped to the Saudi embassy in Tehran, and after major resistance from the Iranians was allowed to leave last month. Another son, Bakr, left Iran in December. The Treasury Department has blacklisted a member of al-Qaeda living in Iran who they say arranged for Ayman al-Zawahiri’s family to live there. The scenario painted by Parrot suddenly seems very realistic.

My good friend John Loftus, who is very well-connected in the intelligence community, brought the information including the short-wave frequencies of bin Laden’s radios to the CIA director, the State Department, and other intelligence agency leaders but got no response. Either loyalists of the false “radical Shiites and radical Sunnis will never work together” mantra convinced their superiors that it was an impossibility, or the government’s hands are tied as getting bin Laden would mean a violent operation on Iranian soil.

But this isn’t the only eyewitness testimony placing bin Laden in Iran. Last year, I put together a report compiling all of the reports about his presence in Iran in an attempt to develop a timeline. I found that the testimonies were not contradictory, came from unrelated sources, and were supportive of one another.

Two former Iranian intelligence officers, including one who has provided credible information that saved American lives in Afghanistan, told journalist Richard Miniter that bin Laden entered Iran on July 26, 2002, to escape a Pakistani offensive. They detailed his travels inside Iran, and claim to have personally met him on October 23, 2003, near Tehran. He and Ayman al-Zawahiri were dressed like Iranian clerics and were escorted by the Revolutionary Guards.

In his book, Timmerman talks about a credible Iranian source he developed that had “direct knowledge” of a late 2004 meeting between Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden, and top Iranian officials. The source, like the others, said bin Laden was dressed as an Iranian cleric, appeared unhealthy, and had an IV in his hand. Timmerman says he saw a photo of the meeting and was able to confirm its age by dating a cell phone that was placed on the table.

These eyewitness accounts are supported by various pieces of evidence and provide much more detail about bin Laden’s changing locations. My comprehensive report can be read here. When the totality of the information is considered, it is undeniable that there is more personal testimony putting him in Iran than in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Last February, a UCLA team pinpointed three buildings in Parachinar in northwestern Pakistan as his likely hiding spots, but that town is a Shiite majority and not a very secure spot to hide in — and the report did not mention Iran once. All of this information does not seem to have been included in their analysis. Other reports focus on Chitral, Northwest Frontier Province, North Waziristan, or Baluchistan in Pakistan, but countless drones and spies are scouring these areas for him. Al-Qaeda’s support in Pakistan has plummeted, and the military’s offensives in the Swat Valley and South Waziristan and constant CIA drone air strikes make hiding out there a dangerous gamble.

John Loftus tells me that his intelligence sources say that bin Laden splits his time between Iran and Pakistan, spending about half a year in each. The two Iranian intelligence defectors interviewed by Richard Miniter confirmed that bin Laden is allowed to leave Iran, but it is very risky for the Iranians to allow this to happen for the reasons cited above. It is also telling that the capture of Mullah Baradar, the second-in-command of the Taliban, and other al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, does not appear to have yielded any major intelligence about his alleged safe haven in the area.

If it is true that bin Laden is being harbored in Iran, the aforementioned conditions make it less and less likely that he’ll travel outside the country and afford us an attempt to nab him. Parrot put together an operation in 2006 with former special forces members to snatch bin Laden at a specific location, but when he told the FBI, they responded with threatening to arrest him and his team. Unfortunately, it seems that the government is only willing to aggressively pursue bin Laden if he isn’t in Iran.

Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com, national security advisor to the Christian Action Network, and an intelligence analyst with the Asymmetrical Warfare and Intelligence Center (AWIC). He can be contacted at TDCAnalyst@aol.com.

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/is-osama-bin-laden-enjoying-a-safe-haven-in-iran/

URLs in this post:

[1] claims: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8394470.stm

[2] update: http://www.newsmax.com/KenTimmerman/BinLadin-Iran-Tribeca-falcon/2010/04/26/id/356929

[3] story: http://newsmax.com/KenTimmerman/Bin-Laden-terrorist-Iran/2009/12/14/id/342161

[4] identified: http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/hp1360.htm

[5] known: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/01/return_to_jihad.php

[6] said: http://abcnews.go.com/International/Afghanistan/exclusive-osama-bin-laden-son-warns-next-al-qaeda-leader/story?id=9794603&page=2

[7] allowed: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/International/iran-releases-osama-bin-ladens-teenage-daughter/story?id=10169432&page=1

[8] blacklisted: http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=548#more-548

[9] report:

[10] book: http://www.amazon.com/Countdown-Crisis-Coming-Nuclear-Showdown/dp/1400053684

[11] pinpointed: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090217141536.htm
Reminds me of a similar incursion last December 2009 when some Iranian troops made claim to an Iraqi oil well, if I can recall correctly.


SULAIMANIYAH, Iraq (AFP) - Iraqi border guards exchanged fire with Iranian troops on the border with Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region on Thursday, the head of Iraq's border forces in Sulaimaniyah province said.
"Iranian forces thought that the border guards belonged to PJAK (the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan -- an Iranian Kurdish rebel group) and started to open fire," Brigadier General Ahmed Gharib Diskara told reporters.

"The border guards shot back and one officer of the Iraqi army has been captured. Negotiations are ongoing to free him."

Gharib said the shooting went on for about 90 minutes in a mountainous part of the two countries' border known as Shamiran, 90 kilometres (55 miles) southeast of Sulaimaniyah, Iraqi Kurdistan's second-biggest city.

War with Iran?

I haven't read all the post before me but this is what I think:

1) The country of Iran:
In a legalistic point of view Iran is a sovereign country by all means. It has all the organization of a government, military, finance, health, economic departments, etc... As much as we dislike how the Iranian government is run and on the basis that they are building nuclear devices it does not satisfy "just war" against Iran. It has all the rights to do what ever she wants from building a nuclear weapons to establishing "I hate the West" holiday.

2) Can we (West) stop Iran from building nuclear weapons?
Militarily we can not because consider: Iran is a pretty big place we can't bomb every nuclear site with the certainty of it being destroyed. Invasion? no currently even with the United States there will be not enough troops and material to conduct a successful military campaign. Even if we successfully defeat the armed forces of Iran there will be immense political, economical, social fallout not only in Iran but the whole world. Example: oil prices, stock market, etc... In the most extreme scenario to stop (using force) Iran we might have to destroy Iran with nuclear devices of our own to prevent Iran from having them. But of course no sane country on earth will do that as much as we joke about it. 

Diplomatically we could put some pressure but at the end Iran's nuclear program is state driven. The current political climate actually encourages Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Consider if you were in Iran's shoes; your neighbours has been invaded by foreign countries, the enemy that you have fought; Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq-Iran_War) was defeated in less then a month by the United States and her partners.  Iraq was one of the largest military in the Middle East and the invasion of the US and her partners made Iraq's military forces look like kids playing with plastic tanks. A nuclear weapon will secure Iran's political strength in the world community. Because they know that no matter how hard the West pushes they can't push to hard. So far sanctions by the West has been half hearted; think of it like sanctions done by the League of Nations when it tried to stop Italy from invading Ethiopia. Sanctions will only really start to matter when Russia and China really steps in. Since the West has been boycotting Iran for so long Western influence in Iran is almost nill.

3) Nuclear weapons + Iran
Lets assume we have solid conformation that they do have nuclear weapons. If Iran decides to shoot off nuclear warhead equipped missiles; the current Iranian missile capability can only really effect regionally. Iran's missile capability at best right now can maybe hit Hawaii or Alaska but not the major states south of the Canadian border. Even that guess is a best case scenario by "military experts". Furthermore what do Iran have to gain to shoot nuclear weapons half way around the globe? I know that Iran's government is pretty radical when compared to Western liberal democracy but they are as rational as any government when trying to keep themselves in power. They periodically say destroy the "Great Satin" and "destroy Israel" but actually do it maybe a totally different ball game. Lets say they decided to take Hawaii off the map with one or two ICBMs. The United State can destroy Iran in a heartbeat with just the CVBGs in the Middle East and they can call in more CVBGs from the Med. and from the Indian Ocean, Diego Garcia before Iran's ICBMs landed at Hawaii.

Regional and international level if Iran is crazy enough to start chucking bombs around it will give the international community the perfect justification/excuse/opportunity to invade and that is the last thing that Iran will want to have if they (the current government) want to stay in power.

To end it off war with Iran highly un-likely with our current political climate.

PS: I am in no way supporting Iran it is just my analysis of the "here and now"
Reuters link

Iran makes nuclear offer, but West unconvinced
By Parisa Hafezi and Fernando Exman

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran made an apparent concession over its nuclear program, but big powers expressed skepticism and analysts said the move seemed intended to split the international community and avert planned new U.N. sanctions.

Tehran agreed with Brazil and Turkey on Monday to send some of its uranium abroad, reviving a fuel swap plan drafted by the U.N. with the aim of keeping its nuclear work in check.

But Iran made clear it had no intention of suspending domestic enrichment the West suspects is aimed at making bombs.

"There is no relation between the swap deal and our enrichment activities," Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, told Reuters.

He told Iranian television the deal was a move toward nuclear cooperation and "stopping sanctions."

Iran launched work to enrich uranium to a 20 percent level in February. Further enrichment would be needed to make weapons.

The White House said Iran must take steps to prove its nuclear program was for exclusively peaceful purposes.

"Given Iran's repeated failure to live up to its own commitments ... the United States and international community continue to have serious concerns," a spokesman said.

Iran. Making friends and influencing people all over:


The Israeli-Arab Alliance Against Iran

Despite the outward condemnation of Israel by many Arab Muslim states, there are persistent stories of behind-the-scenes cooperation between these blood enemies against the common foe Iran.
May 22, 2010
- by Ryan Mauro
Share |

The unlikeliest of alliances has been created. Many Arab states, including ones who do not even recognize Israel’s right to exist, are finding themselves in the same corner as the Jewish. Radical Shiite Iran is seen by Sunni Arab governments as more aggressive and a greater threat than Israel. They understand that Iran has the desire to overthrow their regimes.

Anyone with connections in the Middle East, foreign policy apparatus, or intelligence community can tell you that the Arab governments and much of their populations look at Iran with fear. Arab media consistently warn of the regime’s designs, and officials constantly speak of the dangers of neighbors meddling in their affairs — careful not to call Iran out directly, but clear enough to sound the alarm. The anti-Iranian rhetoric has reached levels only rivaled by the vitriol expressed toward the Israelis. Sunni Arab governments have frequently attributed domestic unrest by their Shiite minorities to the Iranians and, in the cases of Saudi Arabia and Yemen, have directly seen Iran wage an undeniable proxy war against them.

The Arab states clearly see Iran’s strategy. The Saudi royal family is well aware that its eastern province, where 90% of the oil is located, has a majority Shiite population that is unhappy with their treatment. The Saudis have publicly accused Iran of harboring al-Qaeda members targeting the kingdom.

Bahrain is a majority Shiite country, and Iranian officials have even talked about annexing the country. The Bahrainis have accused Syria, Iran’s ally, of training terrorists that are targeting them. Kuwait has busted a seven-strong cell of Revolutionary Guards agents that prepared attacks in the country in the event of an attack on Iran.

The United Arab Emirates is about 15-20 percent Shiite and has frequently clashed with Iran in its disputes over three Gulf islands. Even Fatah in the West Bank has publicly taken an anti-Iranian line, consistently denouncing Hamas as a proxy for the regime and attributing Iranian influence to their sabotaging of any negotiations. Remarkably, the Saudis and Fatah placed the blame on Hamas for the 2009 offensive in Gaza, and the Saudis even arrested a prominent cleric who said that attacks on Israelis were permissible in light of the Israeli offensive.

No country has suffered from the ideological extremism and terrorism of Iran and their Syrian allies more than Iraq. Even Israel cannot say that tens of thousands of its citizens have been killed indirectly and directly by the Iranians, with violence threatening to propel the country into civil war and cause the collapse of the government. Former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, a secular Shiite, and his secular Sunni allies who won the most votes in the most recent national elections are perhaps the most outspoken opponents of Iran’s activity in their country.

Prime Minister al-Maliki, whose coalition came in a close second, isn’t vocally against the Iranian regime but he used his military to fight a wide-ranging offensive against Iranian-backed militias. The view of the relationship between religion and government in the majority Arab Shiite country of Iraq makes them a distinct threat to the Persian extremist Shiites that rule Iran. A new poll found that only 18 percent of Iraq’s Shiites have a favorable view of Iran’s role in their country and only 17 percent have a favorable view of Ahmadinejad. The rest of Iraq’s sects, the Kurds and Sunni Arabs, have an even greater disdain for the Iranian regime.

Egypt and Jordan know they are targets of Iran for their peace with Israel — an unforgivable sin to the mullahs. When terrorists tried to kill two Israeli diplomats in Jordan in January, the government immediately suspected Iran’s involvement, investigating whether Iranian diplomats had brought the explosives into their country. The security services believed individuals connected to al-Qaeda were responsible for launching the attack, but had done so with financing and material from Iran.

The Mubarak regime of Egypt has taken a hard line on the Iranian-backed Hamas, accurately seeing them as inseparable from the Muslim Brotherhood it faces at home. Last spring, the regime arrested 49 members of Hezbollah planning attacks on its soil on Israeli targets. The Egyptian prime minister said that Hezbollah had “virtually declared war” when it called on Muslims to overthrow their government and others in the region. All of these governments and others understand that their sectarian identity and ties with the U.S. mean their replacement or domination is part of Iran’s scheme.

The two Arab governments that stand apart are Syria, Iran’s best ally, and Qatar. Although Qatar houses a major U.S. base, the Qatari emir has been kissing Iran’s behind, saying that the Islamic world needs them to become a superpower. In July 2009, the Qatari chief of staff met with the commander of the Revolutionary Guards and said that anyone threatening Iran also threatens his country and that they’d hold joint naval exercises. This could, of course, just be a way of courting the power that the Qataris believe will ultimately win.

The Arab governments are deathly afraid of a nuclear bomb in the hands of Iran, even if their populations are too focused on the so-called evils of the U.S. and Israel to see it. They may be unsure if Iran will actually use the bomb, but they surely know that the possession of it will enable Iran to take advantage of their fragility in ways thus far unseen.

There are consistent rumors of intelligence gathering and joint contingency planning between Israel and various Arab states; rumors that are probably based in reality. Reports that the Saudis have given Israel permission to use its airspace to attack Iran refuse to go away, despite the predictable denials of officials on both sides. The Egyptian government has openly confirmed that they allowed two Israeli missile boats and a Dolphin-class nuclear-capable submarine to pass through the Suez Canal in July 2009 in an exercise clearly aimed at Iran.

In March, an Israeli member of parliament said that a “wall to wall coalition” of Muslim countries, including ones that don’t even have diplomatic relations with Israel, had sent them secret messages expressing their support for military action against Iran. If a scenario unfolds where Israel attacks Iran with the Arabs secretly assisting, expect those same Arab regimes to viciously condemn the attacks and express support for a UN condemnation. They’ll express their solidarity with Iran, and should Israeli forces cross into their territory, there might be obligatory gunfire upon them that will conveniently miss to show how their sovereignty was violated. The Arab governments will try to escape the wrath of Iran and their angry populations, but will smile behind closed doors.

Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com, national security advisor to the Christian Action Network, and an intelligence analyst with the Asymmetrical Warfare and Intelligence Center (AWIC). He can be contacted at TDCAnalyst@aol.com.
United States. Making friends and influencing people all over....again


U.S. Expands Covert Military Disruption of Iran

Kurt Nimmo
May 25, 2010
A not so secret directive penned by Gen. David H. Petraeus authorizes sending American Special Operations troops into Iran. The directive mentions a wide swath of countries in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa, but is obviously tailored for Iran, the number one target on the Pentagon’s radar.

The New York Times reports that the “secretive” directive is designed to “penetrate, disrupt, defeat or destroy” al-CIA-duh and other militant groups, as well as to “prepare the environment” for future attacks by American or local military forces. It authorizes attacks outside of designated war zones and dispenses with informing Congress and the American people.

Petraeus’ order, according to the scribes at the Times, is “meant for small teams of American troops to fill intelligence gaps about terror organizations and other threats in the Middle East and beyond, especially emerging groups plotting attacks against the United States.”
In 2006, the journalist Seymour Hersh reported on U.S. “clandestine activities” (such as blowing up mosques) in Iran. “This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war,” a Pentagon adviser told Hersh.
In 2007, Bush issued “secret presidential approval” for the CIA to conduct covert operations in Iran. In 2009, it was reported that Israel had joined in the effort to destabilize Iran. “United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year,” Hersh said in June, 2008. “These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of ‘high-value targets’ in the President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed.”

In 2008, Hersh talked about covert missions in Iran.
Israel used “hitmen, sabotage, front companies and double agents” to disrupt the country, according to the Daily Telegraph.
Earlier this month Hersh said the Pentagon has Obama on a short leash and his administration experienced a seamless transition from Bush and the neocons.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration has signaled it will continue to lean on Iran. “U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says an Iranian plan to swap some of its enriched uranium for reactor fuel is a “transparent ploy” to try to avoid new U.N. Security Council sanctions over its suspect nuclear program,” reports the Associated Press this morning. “Speaking in the Chinese capital of Beijing, Clinton said Tuesday the swap offer submitted to the U.N. nuclear watchdog has a number of deficiencies and does not address international concerns about Iran’s atomic ambitions.”

In 2009, the new director of the United Nations’ the International Atomic Energy Agency said there is no evidence that Iran is using its legal nuclear energy program as a cover to develop nuclear weapons. “I don’t see any evidence in IAEA official documents about this,” Japan’s Yukiya Amano told Reuters. The IAEA has consistently said it cannot find evidence of an Iranian nuclear program.
Former Bush speechwriter and neocon David Frum praised the efforts of Democrats to meddle in Iran’s business on Monday. “Impatient with White House inaction, Democrats in Congress are pressing ahead with their own plan for gasoline sanctions on Iran,” Frum wrote for the National Post.

The U.S. has a long history of military intervention around the world. It has dispatched troops to Korea, China, Vietnam, Lebanon, Egypt, Laos, the Congo, the Dominican Republic, Cambodia, El Salvador, Grenada, Honduras, Iraq, Panama, Bolivia, Somalia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and many other nations. See an exhaustive list here.
The CIA’s operation TPAJAX in Iran deposed the democratically elected leader Mohammad Mossadeq in 1953. The “CIA extensively stage-managed the entire coup, not only carrying it out but also preparing the groundwork for it by subordinating various important Iranian political actors and using propaganda and other instruments to influence public opinion against Mossadeq,” writes Mark Gasiorowski.
Observation: This thread started in 2005.  Is this war with Iran still imminent?
By our timeframes 5 years is a long time, by theirs, it could take 5 years just to set the stage for the right conditions.

The biggest hope I have is the spreading influence of the RG. The RG is mainly now motivated by greed. They are slowly taking over the economy and isolating the mullahs. It's unlikely that the RG will go so far as to create economic chaos in the region that will drain their pocket books. The Mullahs have been motivated by religion and that makes them far more dangerous as dying and supposedly going to heaven is not much of a worry for someone who is heavily devout. Human greed may yet save us from all out war.
It seems thats it is highly unlikely that Iran would ever attack Israel. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is blowing air to try and maintain the image that Iran is dangerous and a world player. These threats of his about using nuclear weapons is just talk, everyone knows how quick of a reaction there would be militarily from the whole world their would be no chance of the Iranian government winning. I read in a book about the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the author states that the current islamic government has never been as unpopular as it is now, this is very true and was proven when there was wide spread revolt in the country. There are many who support the government, but many of them are older generations and the difference is too significant for the islamic government to make a move. If they did, I wouldnt be suprised if there were even bigger revolts and they would be aided by the C.I.A and M.I.6, they did it to the democractic government of Mohammad Mosaddegh with little support of the people, imagine now. Just curioushas anyone ever looked up the structure of the iranian government, the president of Iran is not the highest level of government he has to answer to a number of others. These more powerful positions are, the supreme leader-  Ali Khamenei, the assembly of experts, and probably some commanders in the revolutionary guard. It seems this situation isnt as serious as it is made out to be, hopefully
And now, the relationship between russia and Iran is in a bad situation for the first time ever. Russia has also started to improve relations with the U.S. China has to much interest in the West and it's stability to side with Iran and the threat of war. This knockes out two of Iran's biggest allies, so when your friends are not there for you therefore youre out of luck
One thing that we are not thinking about also is the groups which Iran supports, if there was war with Iran, Hezbollah, the Shiite militas and maybe other groups would be looking to start trouble.
sean m said:
One thing that we are not thinking about also is the groups which Iran supports, if there was war with Iran, Hezbollah, the Shiite militas and maybe other groups would be looking to start trouble.

Which suggests that in your mind opinion, "Hezbollah, the Shiite militas and maybe other groups"are not now "looking to start trouble." Sorry, I disagree.
Of couse, with their recent activity it could be classified as "looking for trouble" but it seems that they were only attempting to instigate something.  Hezbollah through funding has a fair amount of weapons and money, they are one of the most proficient guerilla movements in world. They are very entrenched in lebanese society. There is a reason why Israel suffered so may casualites and had to pull out after it when in, a couple of years ago. In Iraq, it seems to have gotten calmer, the shiite militas have calmd down and are trying to work together. It would not be good to get them rattled up again. The positive is that they were beat before and can be again, but it would be best not to get them angry.

E.R. Campbell said:
Which suggests that in your mind opinion, "Hezbollah, the Shiite militas and maybe other groups"are not now "looking to start trouble." Sorry, I disagree.
It would not be good to get them rattled up again. The positive is that they were beat before and can be again, but it would be best not to get them angry.

Typical victim attitude. Don't get them mad, they might do something. ::)
Sean, just out of curiosity why would you not just edit your posts above (it gives you 24 hours to do so) if you think of something else, instead of making three posts in a row within 24 hours?
Victim???? I am looking at what consequences there would be. I doubt that people would want there to be increased violence in iraq and lebabon due to war with Iran. This would lead to many more casualties in those countries and abroad as well as further destabilize the region and create a SH** more jihadis. I want to get rid of that government. I think the best thing to do would be for intelligence agencies to go in there and destabilize it from the inside, like they did before which lead to this iranian government being in place.

GAP said:
Typical victim attitude. Don't get them mad, they might do something. ::)
sean m said:
Victim???? I am looking at what consequences there would be. I doubt that people would want there to be increased violence in iraq and lebabon due to war with Iran. This would lead to many more casualties in those countries and abroad as well as further destabilize the region and create a SH** more jihadis. I want to get rid of that government. I think the best thing to do would be for intelligence agencies to go in there and destabilize it from the inside, like they did before which lead to this iranian government being in place.

Please let us know if you get a job with INT, I'd like to know when to request a transfer to a desk job.
sean m said:
...There is a reason why Israel suffered so may casualites and had to pull out after it when in, a couple of years ago...

Yes, and it had a heck of a lot more to do with a lot of the rest of the world saying "Okay Israel you have made your point, time to bring your ball home" than it did with any resistance stopping them.

Israel was quite capable of doing far more than it did, and it my opinion showed far more restaint than it had to.

Someone rockets your country, you tell them to stop.  Then 100 rockets come and you tell them to stop.  200?  Still nothing.  Finally, after ~300 rockets came in Israel launched their offensive.