Jump to content


Photo

Coming Conflict With Iran


  • Please log in to reply
1190 replies to this topic

#21 tankerwanabe

tankerwanabe

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,504 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 1526 PM

There is the possiblity of both the Israelis and Persians understanding the concept of mutual destruction. So upon Iran declaring it's nuclear stockpile, the Israelis will publicly show theirs. And now we're all even. Both countries are too small to survive a nuclear strike or retaliation.

What about the possibility of the Iranians moving nukes into terrorist hands? Kind of risky considering they're not exactly liked in the Middle East. Giving Hezbola small arms and rockets is one thing... Nukes another. Todays friends kind of tend to be tomorrow's enemeny in that part of the world. And Israel may simply declare that it will flatten Iran with Nukes if attacked with Nukes regardless of where it came from.

I'm just hoping for a nuke arms race.
  • 0

#22 Guest_JamesG123_*

Guest_JamesG123_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 December 2011 - 1549 PM

Because it will get back to them. Beyond the fact that Iran would be the first of a short list of suspects, all of the fizzile material in the world (including Irans) has a specific isotope "fingerprint" that indicates its point of origin, one of the few things Clancy got right in "Sum of all Fears".


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


In hardball geopolitics it is. If the Palestinians "win" they don't need the Iranians anymore, and so won't bend to their will such as the spy vs. spy shinanigans in Lebanon recently.

Putting your wrong morals and civilizational solidarity aside...


I'm being objective.

If you think US retires from scene and don't loose you are sorely mistaken.


"Looses" what?

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.


Sorry, we're broke. No more adventures in other peoples affairs for you.
Maybe you should ask the Chinese if they want to play World Police for a while? Maybe the German government since they think they have the answers and money for everything...
  • 0

#23 Heirophant

Heirophant

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 1620 PM

We also have to remember: Iran is not totally isolated in terms of external support.

A repeat of the Iraq invasion of 2003 is very unlikely, because the world situation is now so different. Back then, Russia was willing to go along, and China basically had no choice. In practical terms, these nations, and others, saw nothing to be gained from opposing America's will in the Middle East.

In 2012, you have a proud Bear that's distrustful of American and West European policy, and a voraciously hungry Dragon that needs the Middle East's oil to flow.

Neither of these nations are going to stand on the sidelines as their interests in the Persian Gulf and the wider region are hurt.

Then there are the other developing nations of the world, many in the "G-20". They don't wish to see their trade with Iran cut. These countries will make any economic siege of Iran almost impossible.
  • 0

#24 Jim Martin

Jim Martin

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

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,594 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 1850 PM

We also have to remember: Iran is not totally isolated in terms of external support.

A repeat of the Iraq invasion of 2003 is very unlikely, because the world situation is now so different. Back then, Russia was willing to go along, and China basically had no choice. In practical terms, these nations, and others, saw nothing to be gained from opposing America's will in the Middle East.

In 2012, you have a proud Bear that's distrustful of American and West European policy, and a voraciously hungry Dragon that needs the Middle East's oil to flow.

Neither of these nations are going to stand on the sidelines as their interests in the Persian Gulf and the wider region are hurt.

Then there are the other developing nations of the world, many in the "G-20". They don't wish to see their trade with Iran cut. These countries will make any economic siege of Iran almost impossible.



Well we will not have use of airfields in the Gulf States or Iraq most likely, if the conflict is painted as one to save Israel. The Arabs don't like the Iranians and don't want them to have nukes, but supporting a war against Muslims on behalf of Jews would be utterly political suicide in their countries. Iraq would sit this one out too. Frankly, even Diego Garcia may or may not be available to us, depending how the UK feels about how things are going. Logistically, a ground invasion of Iran would be a bitch. There won't be any mass buildup of troops for a blitzkrieg across the border, you're looking at a major forcible entry onto the coast to seize port facilities, and then bring follow on forces in by sea and air. The terrain is nasty and hilly in places, good for ambushes and dogged defenders. The Chinese have already rattled their sabers over Iranian security, and the Russians are a big question mark.
  • 0

#25 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,253 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 1917 PM

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


I thought that was Hez'ballah?
  • 0

#26 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,511 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 1922 PM

I thought that was Hez'ballah?

The fish gotta have water to swim in.
  • 0

#27 swerve

swerve

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,779 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 0808 AM

Logistically, a ground invasion of Iran would be a bitch. There won't be any mass buildup of troops for a blitzkrieg across the border, you're looking at a major forcible entry onto the coast to seize port facilities, and then bring follow on forces in by sea and air. The terrain is nasty and hilly in places, good for ambushes and dogged defenders.

The oilfields of the SW are in flat country, like the adjoining part of Iraq, but as soon as you head inland from there it gets mountainous, & the mountains extend for a long way inland. Most of the coast south & east of Bushehr is mountainous, or at least hilly.

It's very different from Iraq. As well as being far hillier, it's much bigger, & has three times the population, the majority of them the same religion & ethnicity as the leadership.

Edited by swerve, 14 December 2011 - 0820 AM.

  • 0

#28 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,502 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 1401 PM

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?


Standard US practice throughout most of modern history is that when an ally’s security is threatened the US makes an alliance with them and sends American forces to their territory to defend them if they are attacked. In this case, a US nuclear deterrent on Israeli soil would obviously be part of the OOB.

Israel doesn't have the option of cutting bait, the survival of Judaism is on the line


I think the US might have a policy option somewhere between the annihilation of Israel and the annihilation of Iran.

Well we will not have use of airfields in the Gulf States or Iraq most likely, if the conflict is painted as one to save Israel.


If the conflict is to save Israel, then how could anyone but Iran be in control of the Iraqi bases necessary for Iran to launch an invasion of Israel? But if Iran has these bases, then what happened to the USAF, which otherwise would have long laid waste to Iranian convoys running in the vast open wastes of western Iraq?

Edited by glenn239, 14 December 2011 - 1401 PM.

  • 0

#29 Jim Martin

Jim Martin

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

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,594 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 1405 PM

Standard US practice throughout most of modern history is that when an ally’s security is threatened the US makes an alliance with them and sends American forces to their territory to defend them if they are attacked. In this case, a US nuclear deterrent on Israeli soil would obviously be part of the OOB.



I think the US might have a policy option somewhere between the annihilation of Israel and the annihilation of Iran.



If the conflict is to save Israel, then how could anyone but Iran be in control of the Iraqi bases necessary for Iran to launch an invasion of Israel? But if Iran has these bases, then what happened to the USAF, which otherwise would have long laid waste to Iranian convoys running in the vast open wastes of western Iraq?



Uhhhhhh...the threat faced by Israel is not a ground invasion by Iran, but Iranian nukes aimed at Tel Aviv. Have you been reading the news the last few years? Israel is highly likely to launch a strike against Iran to destroy their nuclear weapons program, and the US has been making the same noises. The potential conflict under discussion is one engendered by US/Israeli action against Iran to prevent Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons. In which case, there is no Iranian occupation of Iraq, it's preemptive action against Iran.
  • 0

#30 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,502 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 1652 PM

Uhhhhhh...the threat faced by Israel is not a ground invasion by Iran, but Iranian nukes aimed at Tel Aviv.


Standard US response to this type of thing is a nuclear deterrent on site plus ABM batteries with all the latest gadgets. Iran fires and interceptors shoot it down. The wreckage is confirmed as a nuclear bomb and then the USAF launches a decapitating strike into Iran.
So why would Israel be any different for what’s worked everywhere else for 50 years? I mean, the hard on North Korea has for South Korea is way worse than anything the Iranians and Israelis have thrown about.

Sure this all isn’t just to be a big distraction to get around all this recent nonsense about a Palestinian homeland? To get around why what has worked for 50 years won’t work here, one has to argue that the Iranians are somehow different, but I mean, if you’re not of a mind to make the leap that the unalterable patterns of human history stop at Tehran three years from now, then you’ll assume more along the lines that anyone making such a wild claim is a little, shall we say, excitable, right?

Have you been reading the news the last few years? Israel is highly likely to launch a strike against Iran to destroy their nuclear weapons program,


Yes, I’ve read Israel may indeed make an attack, but to say that will ‘destroy’ the Iranian nuclear weapons program is a little like saying the latest Zeppelin model of 1917 was going to ‘destroy’ London. Even the USAF doesn’t really seem to give the impression that it can finish off the program.

The potential conflict under discussion is one engendered by US/Israeli action against Iran to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.



Dunno. The leap of faith is that bombing Iran is going to make Iran not build a nuclear bomb. The opposite seems more likely – that not only will they, but much of the rest of the non-English world will sympathize with them in doing so, since it will look like an unprovoked attack. The Iranians will say, oh, we weren’t building one before, but now we are. Then what are we going to do, bomb them?

Edited by glenn239, 14 December 2011 - 1654 PM.

  • 0

#31 Sardaukar

Sardaukar

    Cynical Finnish Elk Eating Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,624 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 1948 PM

Based on my personal exeperience, rockets raining on me..me not pleased.

Edited by Sardaukar, 14 December 2011 - 1959 PM.

  • 0

#32 Jim Martin

Jim Martin

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

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,594 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 0617 AM

The problem is that the leadership of Iran are a bunch of religious nutjobs, and Imanutjob is a hardcore Twelver, who wants to bring about the End of Days so that the Twelfth Imam will return.

Don't expect rational self-preservation to enter into their thinking as it did with the Politburo.

Hell, Pakistani leadership has said the bomb is a gift from Allah, and should be used.

Imbeciles.
  • 0

#33 FkDahl

FkDahl

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 0638 AM

Interesting back ground info ...
http://turcopolier.t...chard-sale.html

Pat Lang's site is one I recommend!
  • 0

#34 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,502 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 1253 PM

The problem is that the leadership of Iran are a bunch of religious nutjobs, and Imanutjob is a hardcore Twelver, who wants to bring about the End of Days so that the Twelfth Imam will return. Don't expect rational self-preservation to enter into their thinking as it did with the Politburo.


Let’s just for a moment assume this is a load of crap and set it aside. What other reasons might there be for war with Iran now instead of the same containment policy that is currently 100% successful?

I think the US should be stepping back more and forcing the Arabs and Israelis to work together to contain the Iranian threat. Bombing Iran back to the Stone Age and bailing them out is a mistake – make them step up and contain the threat.
  • 0

#35 Guest_JamesG123_*

Guest_JamesG123_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 December 2011 - 1532 PM

I think the US should be stepping back more and forcing the Arabs and Israelis to work together to contain the Iranian threat. Bombing Iran back to the Stone Age and bailing them out is a mistake – make them step up and contain the threat.


Problem is that the Israeli's apparent preferred method of containment is striking at the Iranian's atomic and aerospace capacity.

The Arabs seem content to sit back and watch The Jews and Persians duke it out.
  • 0

#36 Guest_JamesG123_*

Guest_JamesG123_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 December 2011 - 1609 PM

Eh, I can think of more troublesome things that they could be spending their money on.
  • 0

#37 tankerwanabe

tankerwanabe

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,504 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 0033 AM

Problem is that the Israeli's apparent preferred method of containment is striking at the Iranian's atomic and aerospace capacity.

The Arabs seem content to sit back and watch The Jews and Persians duke it out.


Until they go nuclear. Kind of hard to aim for a Jew without hitting a Palestinian with a nuke considering they occasionally live in adjacent neighborhoods.
  • 0

#38 Heirophant

Heirophant

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 0748 AM

I need an explanation or better yet, an exposition.

What are the main reasons some entities, in Iran's case a nation-state, should not legitimately have nuclear weapons, while it's perfectly acceptable for certain other such entities to possess them?

Specifically, why do we choose to live with say Chinese, Russian, Indian and Pakistani nukes, but are bothered by the prospect of North Korean and Iranian nukes?

I mean, none of these nations are developed democratic states (though India is a democracy). But we're okay with say Chinese or Russian ICBMs, but not North Korean or Iranian medium range missiles?

What's the core difference between say the leaders in Beijing or Moscow, and those in Tehran and Pyongyang?
  • 0

#39 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,511 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 0834 AM

Until they go nuclear. Kind of hard to aim for a Jew without hitting a Palestinian with a nuke considering they occasionally live in adjacent neighborhoods.

As I was indicating with my earlier remarks about the Palestinians, they are only 'useful' as long as Israel is there to bludgeon. Following up on one of James' remarks, the Iranians might also use a war with Israel to get in a few licks on pesky Arabs, to show them their place.
In'shallah can be very convenient, yes?

Edited by shep854, 17 December 2011 - 0841 AM.

  • 0

#40 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,502 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 1005 AM

The Arabs seem content to sit back and watch The Jews and Persians duke it out.


The Arabs and the Israelis have a common threat. If the US takes out that threat, then the Arabs and Israelis don’t have to give an inch to each other on their disputes. Therefore, the US has no interest in diminishing the Iranian threat because that is precisely what the Arabs and Israelis want them to do, to avoid having to talk to each other.

In terms of an Israeli attack on Iran, that looks to be all flash and no pan. So Israel goes and bombs Iran. Then tomorrow comes along. What are they going to do, bomb Iran again? And again? Seems pretty infeasible – the first strike the Israelis have the advantage. But by the 10th, they’re really overdue for their tanker support being shot down over Iraq, right?

Seems to me the US best move is to call the Israeli bluff - sure Nettycakes, go bomb Iran. Once this option is shown to be ineffective, the Israelis have lost their trump card.

Edited by glenn239, 17 December 2011 - 1005 AM.

  • 0