Iran Super Thread- Merged

[Bart905]

I was at the barber shop today and the news was on and it said .... Iran threatens to strike first . No offense to our Israeli allies but Iran is not a pawn on the chess board . Iran vs Israel one on one I think Iran will diffidently win, but if course before that happens UN will step in and kicks Iran's ()().

 

[aesop081]

Iran vs Israel one on one I think Iran will diffidently win,

Oh, do explain.

 

[lethalLemon]

I was at the barber shop today and the news was on and it said .... Iran threatens to strike first . No offense to our Israeli allies but Iran is not a pawn on the chess board . Iran vs Israel one on one I think Iran will diffidently win, but if course before that happens UN will step in and kicks Iran's ()().

Need I remind you of the Yom Kippur war? Six-Day War? Or how about the time Israel invaded Lebanon and held a sector in the southern part of the country after a little group of PLO guerillas decided to kill and injure no more than 100 people? (oh sorry, they actually invaded twice). 1981, they bombed Iraq's only nuclear power plant in Baghdad.

Israel can fight, and they fight hard. Plus they've got the US of A following in right behind them if they need it.
Israel has never lost a conflict, and they're not going to start.

 

[a_majoor]

Israel cannot afford to lose a war, so will fight as hard as they can to win, and will become very savage should their backs be to the wall (or sea in this case) and on the verge of destruction.

The United States may or may not be involved under this administration, nor should we expect the UN to intervene, except against Israel. Watching the anti semetic fireworks in the so called Durban conference or the UN and world reaction during "OPERATION CAST LEAD" to clear out Hamas rocket teams from the Gaza strip should clear your head of any notions of UN intervention against Iran.

That being said, from a logistical perspective, Israel will have great difficulties beyond a fairly limited series of goals in any campaign against Iran, you can wargame various combinations but once you start getting mission creep then you will get into difficulties. Iran OTOH also has logistical issues of its own, and needs to consider that they are considered ethnic and religious enemies of the Arabs and the Turks as well, so needs to meter its use of force accordingly.

 

[cupper]

Quote from: Bart905 on Yesterday at 22:57:30
Iran vs Israel one on one I think Iran will diffidently win,

Oh, do explain.

Never mind that, this is what I want the poster to explain:

but if course before that happens UN will step in and kicks Iran's ()().

 

[OldSolduer]

Never mind that, this is what I want the poster to explain:

Yes, I want to read that as well.

 

[larry Strong]

I want him to explain how "diffidently" fits into the equation!!


dif·fi·dent (df-dnt, -dnt)
adj.
1. Lacking or marked by a lack of self-confidence; shy and timid. See Synonyms at shy1.
2. Reserved in manner.

 

[lethalLemon]

Israel cannot afford to lose a war, so will fight as hard as they can to win, and will become very savage should their backs be to the wall (or sea in this case) and on the verge of destruction.

The United States may or may not be involved under this administration, nor should we expect the UN to intervene, except against Israel. Watching the anti semetic fireworks in the so called Durban conference or the UN and world reaction during "OPERATION CAST LEAD" to clear out Hamas rocket teams from the Gaza strip should clear your head of any notions of UN intervention against Iran.

That being said, from a logistical perspective, Israel will have great difficulties beyond a fairly limited series of goals in any campaign against Iran, you can wargame various combinations but once you start getting mission creep then you will get into difficulties. Iran OTOH also has logistical issues of its own, and needs to consider that they are considered ethnic and religious enemies of the Arabs and the Turks as well, so needs to meter its use of force accordingly.

The UN is a joke (and even that's an understatement). Sure, they've probably done some remote good for someone, somewhere; but I am not in the slightest pleased with much of anything they've ever done (and I doubt anything in the future will be any different either, knowing their track record).

 

[estoguy]

The possible sanctions could hold up 20% of the world's oil... its bullshit, because in the end its only going to hurt consumers and the economy.

Let them have their nuclear program and if they make nukes, so what?  Fat chance they will ever use them.  Even though Ammadinnajacket might be a bit of a loon, the man has publicly acknowledged that if they did produce nuclear weapons and used them, they would just be ensuring their own destruction. The chances of them using the weapons are small.

Isreal has over 150 nuclear weapons already.  Why are they allowed to have them?  Oh right, its only Muslims that can't have WMD.  Right.  I think, if anything, Iran having nukes would equalize the playing field in the middle east and cause a Cold War Detente-type situation.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The possible sanctions could hold up 20% of the world's oil... its bullshit, because in the end its only going to hurt consumers and the economy.

Let them have their nuclear program and if they make nukes, so what?  Fat chance they will ever use them.  Even though Ammadinnajacket might be a bit of a loon, the man has publicly acknowledged that if they did produce nuclear weapons and used them, they would just be ensuring their own destruction. The chances of them using the weapons are small.

Isreal has over 150 nuclear weapons already.  Why are they allowed to have them?  Oh right, its only Muslims that can't have WMD.  Right.  I think, if anything, Iran having nukes would equalize the playing field in the middle east and cause a Cold War Detente-type situation.

I think that "doing nothing" - allowing Iran to go nuclear - might provoke a major, nuclear war in the region ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
... which might not be an altogether bad thing. It, a Middle Eastern, even West Asian nuclear war, is not unthinkable: the casualties would number in the hundreds of thousands, at least - almost all civilians, and the destruction would be quite extensive but, as Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated, both people and things can be replaced and, on the bright side, the stalemate might be broken. I'm not 100% certain that, in a major regional conflagration, Israel would be absolutely alone - some Arab states hate and fear Iran and the Shias more than they hate and fear the Jews and Israel.

 

[a_majoor]

Going nuclear is probably the worst case scenario, but consider the Islamic world is split between the Shia and Sunnis, and the Islamic middle east is divided in three major ethnic divisions (Turkish, Persian and Arab), as well as dozens of subsets of Islam and ethnic groups. The current revolt in Syria is creating strange bedfellows, the Assad regime is built around a religious minority, and other minority groups like the Christians are backing the Assad regime since victory by ethnic/religious majority will probably unleash a bloodbath.

WRT nuclear Iran, no one has openly considered how nuclear Pakistan fits into the equation. Pakistan is from a different ethnic group from Iran, and also a different branch of Islam. They have been in the background supplying Iran with nuclear know how, but do they share enough interests in common to be considered allied, neutral or hostile to Iran? In the past, the Persian empire(s) claimed regions of what we know as Pakistan, and the Mughal Empire's relationship with the Persians was also complex (now transfer that to a nuclear India).

A nuclear Iran will be a huge destabilizing factor throughout central and west Asia, and considering the vast number of pieces on the board, will create very unpredictable results.

 

[Nemo888]

If you were Iran sandwiched between US forces in Iraq and US forces in Afghanistan wouldn't you want nukes. I sure as hell would. Only carrots would make me put that idea away. Sticks only prove the point that I need them. The US does not mess with nuclear capable North Korea.  I'd like to sell my oil on my own terms thank you very much. My thinking would be respect my sovereignty or watch me build a nuke a-holes.

I doubt anyone with an address would use nukes on us. Why? Because we have nukes or an ally with them. I expect smaller nations will start sucking up to nuke capable powers once Iran goes nuclear. So much cheaper than building them yourself. They cost billions.

 

[a_majoor]

1. The Iranians are looking to regain the status of regional hegemon, and would be on a similar trajectory regardless of where US forces were parked in the region (or even if they were there at all)

2. Sadly, nuclear fission weapons are dirt cheap, and within the capacity of any reasonably technical individual, excepting only the acquisition of the fissionables. Even the fissionables *could* be arranged without the creation of your own multi billion dollar enrichment program, although that brings other issues to the table

 

[Nemo888]

I'm sure having your sworn enemy and previous colonial exploiter invade and occupy two neighboring countries has a very real visceral effect. They know how vulnerable they are in the coming times of resource scarcity. If I was Iran I would get nukes now at almost any cost. I see great difficulties remaining a sovereign state without them.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm sure having your sworn enemy and previous colonial exploiter invade and occupy two neighboring countries has a very real visceral effect. They know how vulnerable they are in the coming times of resource scarcity. If I was Iran I would get nukes now at almost any cost. I see great difficulties remaining a sovereign state without them.

I'm inclined to agree with your reasoning, Nemo888; were I the grand vizir or ayatolla or whatever I think I would want to go nuclear, too - despite the very real threat from Israel.

Our, Western, strategic calculus is a little less obvious.

My personal preference is a combination of isolation and provocation.

Isolation: I would like to see the US led West withdraw, nearly completely from the Western end of the Islamic Crescent - no military bases or support, no government aid, not even to Egypt, to any country from Morocco to Pakistan, including Afghanistan and throughout the Horn of Africa, from Somalia to Sudan; limited trade, through third parties only; no visas for any resident of any of those countries, except for diplomats (and families); no aid for our citizens who live and work in those countries except for emergency evacuation when, not if, real crises occur.

Provocation: I would like us to take covert action, through whatever groups we can find, to ferment internecine conflicts, revolutions and wars in the region. But no arms sales or supplies - let 'em kill one another with Kalashnikovs and QBZ-95s.

And what about Israel? It can look after itself and if/when worst comes to worst we in the West will welcome millions of educated, sophisticated, Jewish refugees. And Muslim refugees? Well, as in 1945, "None is too many."

 

[GR66]

Define "win" in a war between Israel and Iran. 

Isreal's military is essentially defensive in nature.  While their goal is always forward defense (preferably on Arab territory), they don't have the numbers, capability or even interest in trying to project their ground forces into Iran.  They're way too small a country to even contemplate taking and holding Iranian territory and what would they gain by doing so?  For Israel a "win" would be at least delaying Iran's nuclear program (hopefully until a more moderate regime eventually comes into power in Tehran) and eliminating as much of Iran's other key military/industrial capabilities as possible (it's limited airforce, air defense, and most importantly it's missile capabilities). 

For Iran the situation is very different.  They have a large military, large population and large country with complex terrain.  They are likely reasonably well suited to defend themselves against an invading army and are likely hoping that they can at least put up some kind of effective resistance against enemy air attacks.  However I don't see them having the capability to launch any type of ground-based attack against Israel.  They'd have alot of pretty unfriendly territory to try and cross with their antiquated forces and would be extremely vulnerable to air attack along the way.  I can't see even the loons leading in Tehran throwing away their forces like that.  A "win" for them would be to give any attacking forces enough of a bloody nose to be able to declare some kind of "moral" victory.  In desperate straights they may even launch missiles against Isreal but that would be a very dangerous game for them.  If their attacks fail then it strengthens Israel's standing in the region and makes them look invulnerable.  Do too much damage and they risk a massive nuclear response that would wipe them out. 

A more likely situation (in my opinion) would be for Iran to actively defend it's own airspace and also conduct more limited attacks against regional targets.  This would maybe include mining the Straights of Hormuz and attacking shipping, missile/commando attacks against oil infrastructure targets and airfields, high-visibility targets in neighbouring countries (Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc).  I'd also imagine they'd use their proxies in Lebanon and Gaza/the West Bank to conduct attacks against Israel proper.  I think this strategy would have a greater political payoff for them than a more general attack.  Israeli retaliation would undoubtably hit Palestinian and Lebanese (as well as Iranian) civilian targets while Iranian/allied attacks would not be seen as a threat to the actual existence of Israel.  This would allow Russia (and others) to justify support to Iran both in the UN Security Council (by vetoing any US-led anti-Iran motions) as well as possibly through quiet material support for Iran.

Lots of room for miscalculation though.  It could easily escalate into something a whole lot worse with a single stupid, (un)lucky move by either side.

 

[GAP]

How soon the Iran-Iraq war is forgotten, as is the tens of thousands used as human mine detectors and meat for the mill....

 

[GR66]

How soon the Iran-Iraq war is forgotten, as is the tens of thousands used as human mine detectors and meat for the mill....

No illusions about the leaders of Iran having much (any) regard at all for the lives of their own people.  Sending 10's of thousands of their soldiers into a meat-grinder right along their own border to capture a fairly clearly defined piece of territory is one thing though...sending them trecking across the width of Iraq and Jordan/Syria to Isreal, facing non-stop air attack without any effective air support of their own before they even reach their enemy at the end of a very long and vulnerable supply line is another.  Heck...great if they give it a try...would sure make a quick end to the regime...I just don't see it happening.

 

[Bart905]

Never mind that, this is what I want the poster to explain:

Who owns most the banks in America ? after you do some research and find out the answer I will no longer need to answer this question 

 

[aesop081]

Who owns most the banks in America ? after you do some research and find out the answer I will no longer need to answer this question

Lame response. You would think that with a brilliant post such as "the UN will step in and kick Iran's ***", you would have some intelligent input as to why and how the UN could do that.