Jump to content


Photo

Coming Conflict With Iran


  • Please log in to reply
1190 replies to this topic

#1 Jim Martin

Jim Martin

    Kick me! I'm not allowed to hit back!

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,594 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 0029 AM

Tonight during the Gingrich/Huntsman debate, Amb. Huntsman stated that it is likely that within 5 years, Israel will come to the President with a declaration of intent to strike Iranian nuclear program targets, with an invitation to the US to either join or stay out of the way. Use of Israeli nuclear assets might be an option.

Frankly this is coming down the pike at us, and we are going to have to fish or cut bait. Israel doesn't have the option of cutting bait, the survival of Judaism is on the line. Does the US join the conflict with Israel? Does Israel go nuclear in the absence of US support? How does Iran respond? Can we in fact take on Iran militarily? This ain't Iraq, it's a whole nuther kettle of fish. What happens to the world economy when the price of crude skyrockets?
  • 0

#2 tankerwanabe

tankerwanabe

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,504 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 0158 AM

To me it's an Isael-Iran fight.

If there are news that the Iranians are able to duplicate stealth technology, the it may be sooner than later.

We will do what we've done in the past, give Israel weapons and intelligence. And try to gather international support.
  • 0

#3 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,678 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 0505 AM

The conflict is already going, as anyone who reads the news can see. Since there are no territorial gains to be have, it's going to remain low key, with an explosion here, a rocket there, until the Iranians get the bomb or desist. In the first case, nothing is likely to happen as they will find the maths their predecessors had found:

Us: one bomb
Them: hundreds.

End result, lots of them less, none of us alive at the end.


  • 0

#4 Sikkiyn

Sikkiyn

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,675 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 0555 AM

I think all of this is nicely positioned. Iran doesn't have to build one, only have the ability to build it, and they become the regional big boy. Iraq is tamed and very nicely placed. Kuwait and Saudi are in good positions, and not happy at all about Iran. Syria is busy making a fine mess of things in their own backyard, stirring the pot a little more with some fine tension at the neighbors house.

I smell sales and deals... cha-ching. ;)
  • 0

#5 Guest_JamesG123_*

Guest_JamesG123_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 December 2011 - 0754 AM

I smell sales and deals... cha-ching. ;)


Pretty much. And on all sides.

Iranian machinations and support for the Palestinians is being used as leverage by the Israeli lobby to keep aid and support coming from DC.

The intractable Arab-Israeli\Israel-Palestine problem is a useful stage for the Iranians to gain prestige in the ME. Having an external threat distracts the public from domestic economic and social issues and rallys them around the leadership.

The ol' Arsenal of Democracy needs to keep the lights on.


I recall the same gnashing of teeth over the North Koreans development and testing of a nuclear capacity. Yet, asides from the usual ass-hattery, nothing has really changed in the strategic situation there. Likewise its unlikely that the Iranians would nuke Israel, directly or via a surrogate, because if they did "nuke the joos into the sea", there goes their influence over Palestinian militant groups, who are probably going to be disappointed with reclaiming radioactive territory (not to mention Iran itself is downwind too), and the rest of the world is going to come down on Tehran like the proverbial avenging angel.

Its being developed as a bargaining chip, and in there is why the Israelis/US are working to undermine them. To maintain the status quo of their power dominance, nothing more.
  • 0

#6 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,517 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 0856 AM

'...because if they did "nuke the joos into the sea", there goes their influence over Palestinian militant groups..."
--JamesG123
There go the Palestinians also, solving two problems for the 'Arab leadership'...
  • 0

#7 Guest_JamesG123_*

Guest_JamesG123_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 December 2011 - 0903 AM

The Iranians are not the "Arab Leadership" in fact they are rivals to them.
  • 0

#8 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    purposeful grimace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,275 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 1026 AM

The conflict is already going, as anyone who reads the news can see. Since there are no territorial gains to be have, it's going to remain low key, with an explosion here, a rocket there, until the Iranians get the bomb or desist.


There's a 3rd, though very unlikely option. If the Iranians can orchestrate another pan-Arab coalition and get it to commit suicide a la 1967. It would both weaken Israel and Iran's Arab peers.
  • 0

#9 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,517 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 1035 AM

The Iranians are not the "Arab Leadership" in fact they are rivals to them.

Good point. Still, if the Pals got vaporized along with the Jews, there would be few tears shed off-camera by the Iranians either.
  • 0

#10 Guest_JamesG123_*

Guest_JamesG123_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 December 2011 - 1050 AM

I donno. Its always sad when you lose your favorite pawn...
  • 0

#11 Sardaukar

Sardaukar

    Cynical Finnish Elk Eating Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,624 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 1122 AM

There's a 3rd, though very unlikely option. If the Iranians can orchestrate another pan-Arab coalition and get it to commit suicide a la 1967. It would both weaken Israel and Iran's Arab peers.


Iranians being able to orchestrate that would be unlikely.

Iranians not only being non-Arabs but religiously Shias to the boot...they hate each other almost as much as US infidels..
  • 0

#12 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,517 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 1125 AM

I donno. Its always sad when you lose your favorite pawn...

But then, absent Israel, guess whose problem they become?
  • 0

#13 Sardaukar

Sardaukar

    Cynical Finnish Elk Eating Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,624 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 1129 AM

Good point. Still, if the Pals got vaporized along with the Jews, there would be few tears shed off-camera by the Iranians either.


I think IDF *might* have different view....and the will to take all region with them... So not my favourite scenario...
  • 0

#14 Guest_JamesG123_*

Guest_JamesG123_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 December 2011 - 1129 AM

But then, absent Israel, guess whose problem they become?


Saudi Arabia?

I would be more nervous if I were a neighboring state than had any Shia population least Iran try their own Sudatenland gambit.

IMO an expansionist adventure is much more likely (but still remote) than they nuking Israel for fun and Allah.

Edited by JamesG123, 13 December 2011 - 1134 AM.

  • 0

#15 Sardaukar

Sardaukar

    Cynical Finnish Elk Eating Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,624 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 1136 AM

Saudi Arabia?

I would be more nervous if I were a neighboring state than had any Shia population least Iran try their own Sudatenland gambit.


Uh oh..that'd mean you want to withdraw US precence from Middle East...otherwise Iranians would be able and willing to hurt USA. Since I don't quite see "strategic alliance" between Great Satan and Iran......:unsure:
They'd still be baying for blood...and running isolationist..well...can try.

Edited by Sardaukar, 13 December 2011 - 1141 AM.

  • 0

#16 Guest_JamesG123_*

Guest_JamesG123_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 December 2011 - 1148 AM

Uh oh..that'd mean you want to withdraw US precence from Middle East...otherwise Iranians would be able and willing to hurt USA.


How about a step back so that the US wasn't a direct participant in regional affairs, and contesting regional power dominance for nebulous reasons (just because we could?), did not pose an immediate threat to Iran etc?

Since I don't quite see "strategic alliance" between Great Satan and Iran.


Yes, that bridge got burnt in 1979.
  • 0

#17 Guest_JamesG123_*

Guest_JamesG123_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 December 2011 - 1413 PM

Saber rattling, news at 11.

Iran army declines comment on MP's Hormuz exercise remarks
  • 0

#18 lucklucky

lucklucky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,726 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 1428 PM

...because if they did "nuke the joos into the sea", there goes their influence over Palestinian militant groups...


So they shed tears over losing influence over Palestinian militant employed against Israel if Israel disappears? Is that logical?

How about a step back so that the US wasn't a direct participant in regional affairs, and contesting regional power dominance for nebulous reasons (just because we could?), did not pose an immediate threat to Iran etc?


Putting your wrong morals and civilizational solidarity aside...
If you think US retires from scene and don't loose you are sorely mistaken. Those Horses who don't play the game loose.
The loss of Israel is not only a loss of a culture is much more than that. It will be a start of free for all new ride. Nuke bombs will be developed everywhere.
This will lead potentially a start of a World War because then the loss of confidence in international relation system will make everyone very nervous and many bad types very arrogant.
  • 0

#19 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,678 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 1446 PM

Nuke bombs will be developed everywhere.


Like India? oh, wait...
Pakistan? oh, wait...
North Korea? oh, wait...
South Africa? oh, wait...
Brazil? oh, wait...

That genie is already out of the bottle already.
  • 0

#20 crazyinsane105

crazyinsane105

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,602 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 1508 PM

I hope the Israelis stop with their obsession of an Iranian nuke and start focusing on more pressing matters. An Iran with nukes is more of a threat to the Arab countries than it is to Israel. Did nuclear weapons stop Hamas and Hezbullah from launching attacks against Israel? Nope. Will nuclear weapons leave Iran completely invincible and have the authority to do anything it wants? Nope.
  • 0