PDA

View Full Version : Against Iran



Stan
20 Jul 06,, 15:56
Given todays extended deadline (by iran) for responding to the package offered to them in order to stop the enriching of uranium and that if they are exposes to sanctions they will rethink their stance on nuclear technology i have to say that military action again seems likely, not by the un but i suppose a coalition of the willing.

From the usual suspects i expect that to include the following
uk / usa / isreal (thi time they need to)

france and germany as usual wont take part.
russia and china will condem it then go back to what they normally do.

can any one else see an alternative path that this will go down?

also what will our responce be?

cruise missiles from the indian ocean or the med
B2's
Land forces

just wondering what people think on this subject and the likely out comes

Bill
20 Jul 06,, 20:10
An eventual war- or a nuke armed Iran- is inevitable.

TopHatter
20 Jul 06,, 22:09
also what will our responce be?

cruise missiles from the indian ocean or the med
B2's
Land forces
If it comes to a military response, then you'd better believe that everything including the kitchen sink will be thrown at them.

Bluesman
21 Jul 06,, 02:34
An eventual war- or a nuke armed Iran- is inevitable.

Correct. There is nothing that we could reasonably put on the table that will deal them off of their goal.

We'd better get used to that fact.

Stan
21 Jul 06,, 10:36
and thats when i say thank god the americans put proper money into their armed forces.

i just hope that britain backs it up again on this one. we need to try out our euro fighters.

Bluesman
21 Jul 06,, 15:47
and thats when i say thank god the americans put proper money into their armed forces.

i just hope that britain backs it up again on this one. we need to try out our euro fighters.

They already opted out; we're on our own.

Again.

Stan
21 Jul 06,, 15:54
the only time you were on your own before was vietnam. uk has been there every other time.
i guess we might not get in on the iran action due to the anti war lobby (seriously what do they think we have an armed forces for, tree hugging hippy liberal muppets)

i hope we do get in the fight though, shouldnt be solely up to usa to keep the nukes out of mad mens hands

Bluesman
21 Jul 06,, 16:02
the only time you were on your own before was vietnam. uk has been there every other time.

You're right; that was ungrateful and ungracious.

I admit that I allow my opinion of Europeans to be colored by the anti-US stuff I hear and see, and the UK has been absolutely full of it laltely. But at the national level, they've always been there and put a shoulder to the wheel.

But always with the streets full of yobbos hollering about how terrible we are. :mad:

TopHatter
21 Jul 06,, 17:07
But always with the streets full of yobbos hollering about how terrible we are. :mad:
Just like the U.S. ;)

Except here they proclaim that they "support the troops" whilst undermining their mission and morale...

PubFather
21 Jul 06,, 18:06
You're right; that was ungrateful and ungracious.

I admit that I allow my opinion of Europeans to be colored by the anti-US stuff I hear and see, and the UK has been absolutely full of it laltely. But at the national level, they've always been there and put a shoulder to the wheel.

But always with the streets full of yobbos hollering about how terrible we are. :mad:
There is anti-Americanism in the UK. I think it is only really skin-deep, and coloured by Blair's unpopularity. The impression of Blair essentially being Bush's "female dog" is a hard one to swallow for a nation that is as proud as ours. Coupled with a perception of American "arrogance" and also of American being very gun-ho (the blue-on-blue incidents in GW1 have a part to play in this) this help generate a sense of anti-Americanism.

Get below the surface and most Brits would rather be close to the USA than Europe. I remember the shock felt in the UK after 9/11 which was not feigned. I can understand the resentment many Americans feel - especially the perceived lack of gratitude.

The lack of gratitude again comes down to national pride - we (the French as well) would have prefered to defend ourselves. We failed and thats not easy to live with.
More broadly in Europe, although less so in the UK, there is a resentment by some (the so-called "intellectual classes") at American cultural penetration of Europe, as epitomised by McDonalds, Coke and Bud. My view - simply good marketing... lol

Those yobbos - a minority. A vocal one, but a minority. There is greater sympathy in the UK for the US that you realise. I do think that the US needs a "PR" genius, and actually get it's message across in a way that Brits and Europeans are sympathetic to.

First tip - drop the religious style moralising from Bush, that really annoys Europeans...

Lunatock
21 Jul 06,, 20:01
They already opted out; we're on our own.

Again.

That is unless the Iraqi Shia have the uprising they said they would if action is taken against Iran. Most of the Shiite South is being occupied by British Soldiers.

Ray
22 Jul 06,, 04:13
Because the havoc Iran can play in world economies by not exporting oil, she appears to be snug as a bug in a rug.

Or else she would have experienced something which is not too pleasant I presume.

International politics is most intriguing!

troung
22 Jul 06,, 11:59
the only time you were on your own before was vietnam. uk has been there every other time.

Laos, South Vietnam, South Korea, the Philippines, Cambodia, Thailand, Australia and New Zealand.

Can't think of any allies off the top of my head in Panama.


An eventual war- or a nuke armed Iran- is inevitable.

**** it lets just make friend with them... close friends...

You want to make a regime really unpopular, make friends with them. Let's bank on the fact everyone hates us.

Swift Sword
22 Jul 06,, 14:52
Because the havoc Iran can play in world economies by not exporting oil, she appears to be snug as a bug in a rug.


Sir,

I think that Iran is more of a methane play.

With the World's second largest proven reserves, the failure of Iran to export natural gas might actually be constricting development of World economies.

In the same time frame oil tripled in price per bbl., the price of natural gas per million BTUs was cut in half which gives the Iranians--as well as the Russians and Qataris (@50% of the World's proven reserves between the lot of 'em)--a great deal of leverage when we consider the demand projections of the EU3 as well as the Japanese, South Koreans and a few other interested parties.

Natural gas is a vital feedstock in key industries among the United States' potential allies and this will bring them to Tehran sooner or later with hat in hand under Iranian terms...unless they wish to deal on Mr. Putin's terms, that is.

Essentially, I suppose that is the crux of the matter a few years out as the architecture of the 21'st Century is decided: do we (speaking as an American, at any rate) want a bunch of countries with whom we have close business and political ties to be cash customers of the Iranians or dragged into varying orbits around a resurgent Russia?

I am of the opinion that the Iranians can be dealt with regardless of the trash spewing from Mr. Ahmadinejad's mouth as supreme power in Iran, AFAIK, lies elsewhere and that supreme power understands Iran's Supreme Interests, I suspect.

At this point, given the investment of technical, political and financial capital in nuclear matters, I think that Iran is going to have a more robust nuclear program as the leadership has essentially promised that to the people. I think it extremely desirable that Iran not have full control of the nuclear fuel cycle and even more desirable that they not join the ranks of the nuclear armed.

There is room for both parties to maneuver but only if we stop playing fools by continuing to rely on a Washington-New York-London-Paris-Berlin-Tehran Axis of Incompetence.

Hope this finds you and yours well,

William

Bluesman
22 Jul 06,, 17:42
I am of the opinion that the Iranians can be dealt with regardless of the trash spewing from Mr. Ahmadinejad's mouth as supreme power in Iran, AFAIK, lies elsewhere and that supreme power understands Iran's Supreme Interests, I suspect.

William

William, for the love of GOD, man, WHY will you not see this for what it is? I realize it is an inconvenient truth (to coin a phrase), but WHY do you continue to insist that this is either mere rhetoric, or that the Iranian's leader really isn't in charge, or that we're all just having a bad dream?

Please review your pre-WWII history, particularly the parts that the British Foreign Office bureaucrats and time-serving office-holders and professionals-of-long-standing in the government just could not - WOULD not - believe that Hitler and Mussolini meant what they said, and ask yourself if you could be playing - no, REplaying - those parts. You are a perfect foil for the New Hitler, and I am absolutely dismayed that a man like yourself wants to be 1936 Labour and not 1938 Tory at a time like this. It's so dam' obvious, and it frustrates me so dam' much.

So, we're to deal with them, are we? On what basis? As a state sponsor of terror (the undisputed #1 in that field, actually)? As a belligerant in all but legal terms in our difficult and vital war in Iraq? As a determined adversary that is going hell-for-leather toward nuclear weapons, while claiming they are not? Where do you start in negotiations?

You think the Iranians do NOT understand their own self-interest? OF COURSE THEY DO. And they believe that we will not have the resolve to stop them, and once they cross the finish line, even if the Evil Reagan himself is reincarnated, there's not a dam' thang any enemy anywhere can do to stop their hegemony in the region, and that the regime will endure. And if they're REALLY evil, and I believe they are, then they can arm a proxy to destroy the hated Zionist entity, once and for all, and usher in the Daar es Salaam. Or they can do it themselves, and trust that Allah and the Hidden Imam will protect them and win the war for them.

PLEASE believe that he means what he says. You and everybody else that can't accept that had better think about the LAST TIME a guy that uttered mad things wasn't taken seriously.

astralis
22 Jul 06,, 19:00
William, for the love of GOD, man, WHY will you not see this for what it is? I realize it is an inconvenient truth (to coin a phrase), but WHY do you continue to insist that this is either mere rhetoric, or that the Iranian's leader really isn't in charge, or that we're all just having a bad dream?

bluesman,

just wondering, how seriously did you take president khatami's promises of reform back in the 90s? who pulled whose strings then? who pulls whose strings now?

past that, there's a world of difference between a nuke as deterrence and a nuke as offensive power. if the former, well, we've got nukes as well, and we've been through this before (1949-1991).

as for giving terrorists these weapons, that is certainly a concern, but if that's so, why don't we see hezbollah launching chems at israel right now? iran actually USED WMD in that form back in the iran-iraq war, after all.


You and everybody else that can't accept that had better think about the LAST TIME a guy that uttered mad things wasn't taken seriously.

as int'l strategists often say, do not attribute to madness what can otherwise be attributed to a daring game of realpolitik. i would argue that those professionals at the British Foreign Office DID believe what hitler said, that without concessions in regards to czechslovakia there would be war. that's why chamberlain walked out the airplane declaring that there would be "peace in our time". what they wrongly believed, however, was that the idea of concessions would work.

they certainly identified the right problem (hitler: for why else would britain and france start frantically re-arming in the late 30s?). their solution was wrong.

we, too, have got the problem identified. now we have to make sure that the solution is right. ironically, though, the allegory of the 30s is not always the example that fits best, as US vietnam war planners found out to their dismay.

Swift Sword
22 Jul 06,, 21:33
William, for the love of GOD, man, WHY will you not see this for what it is? I realize it is an inconvenient truth (to coin a phrase), but WHY do you continue to insist that this is either mere rhetoric, or that the Iranian's leader really isn't in charge, or that we're all just having a bad dream?

Bluesman,

Sir, I do understand the danger and we should not take our eyes off those cats.

I also understand that the United States has the wherewithal to do either tremendously constructive or tremendously destructive things in Iran.

Our pimp hand is strong but the Iranians are in a fairly interesting position as well that I will point out a little later on.


Please review your pre-WWII history, particularly the parts that the British Foreign Office bureaucrats and time-serving office-holdedrs and professionals-of-long-standing in the government just could not - WOULD not - believe that Hitler and Mussolini meant what they said, and ask yourself if you could be playing - no, REplaying - those parts. You are a perfect foil for the New Hitler, and I am absolutely dismayed that a man like yourself wants to be 1936 Labour and not 1938 Tory at a time like this. It's so dam' obvious, and it frustrates me so dam' much.

I think you have me misread.

I am under no delusions that the Iranians are not dangerous and I am not advocating appeasement. Quid pro quo is the name of the game and if they take more than is arranged for we reserve the right to blast them straight to Mars.


So, we're to deal with them, are we? On what basis? As a state sponsor of terror (the undisputed #1 in that field, actually)? As a belligerant in all but legal terms in our difficult and vital war in Iraq? As a determined adversary that is going hell-for-leather toward nuclear weapons, while claiming they are not? Where do you start in negotiations?

The United States has engaged and sometimes appeased terror sponsors and WMD proliferators in the past so there is precedent enough to talk.

As to the war in Iraq, that, unfortunately, was a mess of our own American making so it is kind of difficult to assess it consequentially in a policy relevent time frame at this early stage. I will admit that at the time I was of the opinion that the case for rushing to war was counterintuitive. However, I was looking at information that was different than that which was supplied to the CINC.

Where do we start is certainly a good topic for discussion and is debatable but let me focus a little more specifically on why I think we should start.

OK, now here is the lay of Swift Sword's pipe dream.

One core assumption I am operating under (and I could be wrong, assumptions being what they are) is that Iran is not the biggest fish the US is going to have to fry in the 21'st century. Moscow and Beijing are floating around as competitors out there on the threat horizon (and they are both dealing with the Iranians, incidentally).

One more core assumption I am operating under (and this is arguably iffy, but not hoplessly so) is that in terms of what we can get away with at this point in time, the Iranians are gong to prove more maleable than the Russians and the Chinese are now or likely to be in the future.

These things being said, please take note of how many policy interests of the United States and its allies can be advanced by engaging the Iranians:

1. Counter proliferation
2. Counter terror
3. Energy security
4. Stabilization of Iraq
5. Regional stability in Transcaucasia
6. **** block the Russians and the Chinese

And that is just off the top of my head.

It is really worth a try and we do have the time and space to manuever so whats to lose operating on a paralell track?

I sure wish we were being more forceful with non military and non diplomatic measures at this point; we need to put some more pressure on them.


You think the Iranians do NOT understand their own self-interest? OF COURSE THEY DO.

Precisely so; they are well schooled and rational actors who are smart enough to know that a robust, vibrant and stable Iran is a far greater legacy than eating grass to get the bomb or the ashes of dead Jews (and if they are not then the very weapons they seek may well be those which destroy them).


And they believe that we will not have the resolve to stop them, and once they cross the finish line, even if the Evil Reagan himself is reincarnated, there's not a dam' thang any enemy anywhere can do to stop their hegemony in the region, and that the regime will endure.

I think rather highly of Mr. Kissinger's assesment that power must be hegemonic or balanced.


And if they're REALLY evil, and I believe they are, then they can arm a proxy to destroy the hated Zionist entity, once and for all, and usher in the Daar es Salaam. Or they can do it themselves, and trust that Allah and the Hidden Imam will protect them and win the war for them.

While I respect your moral judgement and agree with your general sentiment, I cannot elevate this to the level of Manichaen struggle for that is beyond my ability to resolve. Political problems or tactical problems I can solve but I have no solution to the Battle of Good vs. Evil.

One thing I do know is that Daar es Salaam and the wrong response to efforts to construct it can both lead to the same thing: another thousand years of darkness. I have heard it said that it is foolish "to cut off your nose to spite your face".


PLEASE believe that he means what he says. You and everybody else that can't accept that had better think about the LAST TIME a guy that uttered mad things wasn't taken seriously.

I have had people utter mad things at me for years and usually did not take them serioulsly as most of the time the crisis was foreseeable or manageable which is nature of crisises in general.

Then, one beautiful afternoon one of those **** talkers decided he might make good on his mad utterances and the ensuing action was short, sharp and decisive: when swiftly produced at close range from a front pocket, a snub nosed .357 revolver says I am taking you seriously.

My Uncle Sam has a gun in his pocket, a razor in his shoe, a fistful of cash and more than two centuries of proven largesse, ingenuity and occassionally vengence. He can put the Iranian issue to bed one way OR the other but should not let every smack talking piece of trash get his dander up.

Hope you and yours are well,

William

Stan
24 Jul 06,, 11:41
i just wisj syria would get involved with the conflict going on now with isreal, and then drag in isreal. isreal can send in the jets and flatten irans forces and make its president look like an ass. also we can join in then :)

i just wanna flatten iran

dave angel
24 Jul 06,, 13:51
you do realise that should Israel and Iran go to war (real war, rather than exchanging a few bombs and then arranging some face-saving deal) then Iran is quite likely to use its WMD (chemical) on Israel?

Israel will retaliate, but that won't stop very large numbers of Israeli civilians being dead.

you are begining to look like a fourteen year old who enjoys masturbating over the prospect of very large numbers of dead people.

freak. you might also learn to spell the name of a country you admire so much.

Swift Sword
24 Jul 06,, 14:18
i just wisj syria would get involved with the conflict going on now with isreal, and then drag in isreal. isreal can send in the jets and flatten irans forces and make its president look like an ass. also we can join in then :)

i just wanna flatten iran

STAN,

My intuition tells me that whatever rapes, sodomies, tortures, murders, bombings and pluderings you might have in mind for the Persians are not going to lead to a very satisfactory conclusion for the U.S., its allies, the Iranians and any several of many other interested parties.

And now, I am going to say some more things that are unpopular but appear to be true:

Though I am not privy to the inner machinations of the U.S. foreign policy apparatus, it seems safe to say (please correct if you see fit) that at the grand strategic level the game appears to be the reorientation, stabilization and economic development of Central and Southwest Asia (quite an old idea actually).

If we choose to operate under this assumption, it becomes fairly apparent that the United States is going to need a regional partner. There are several potential candidates but they all have deficencies to one degree or another.

Israel comes to mind but there is too much baggage viz the whole Arab-Israeli deal.

Turkey has very good potential but has some issues.

Russia comes to mind but I would have to be really not sober to consider her seriously given past history.

Pakistan is not up to the task by any stretch of the imagination.

India has come up in discussion but internal relations between Muslims and Hindus as well as the issues with Pakistan come to mind.

That brings us back to Iran.

The simple fact of the matter is that in order for the U.S. and its allies to meet their policy aims with the greatest chance for success, a certain amount of aquiesence on the part of Tehran is going to be a requirement regardless of whether the current regime remains intact, reformed or otherwise toppled from the inside or the out.

Varying degrees of assistance no matter how tacit from Tehran on regional issues regardless of the character of the regime now or in the future will only increase the odds of success.

With greater degrees of engagement and cooperation, the greater the chances for success and timely acheivment of the objective.

Probably the greatest possible return from engagement of the Iranians is the fact that they are possibly the only force in the Muslim world that can reform Sunni Islam and would be an awesome offset to the Pan Islamisists and Wahibist ideology. Now who is going to tell me THAT is not worth the price of admission?

Now, let us ponder the alternatives with regards to military force.

There are three basic options as near as I can tell: a limited demonstration, attack on infrastructure associated with WMD and its delivery system or OIF style regime change.

A limited demonstration such as the reduction of a few Revolutionary Guards garrissons is not likely to accompllish much, leaves the weapons programs intact and does not prevent the Iranians from counterstriking in some way shape or form that we would most likely find disagreeable.

A multi day air campaign against a couple of hundred WMD related infrastructure targets is probably the minimum worthwhile level of activity but is still problematical. Such strikes offer no guaruntee of stopping efforts in that direction (Osirak and Operation Desert Storm are valid case studies) and does not prevent the Iranians from counterstriking in some way shape or form that we would most likely find disagreeable.

The upper end of this use of force continuim is OIF style regime change and this would probably surely solve the WMD pursuit of the Iranians in the near term (let me get back to this). However, given the conditions in the region at present and in the foresseable such regime change regime change would probably lead to the failure of what I assume to be the goal of U.S. foreign policy efforts in the region.

What would the region look like if the U.S. engaged in an OIF style regime change agains the Iranians tommorrow? It would in all likelihood be a solid belt of instability (as opposed to the current, partial belt) that extended from the Levant to Xinjiang which would spill over into the Caspian Basin, encompasss several if not all of the Gulf States and very probably parts of the Arabian Penninsula. Oh yeah...WE STILL might not prevent the Iranians from counterstriking in some way shape or form that we would most likely find disagreeable.

It would be a climate in which reorientation, stabilization and development would be difficult propostions.

We are faced with a multi faceted, highly nuanced and complicated problem for which there are really no good solutions with regards to policy choices. We can do nothing, swallow our pride and take some risks or rush to failure. Military action against Iran may come to pass but it is probably the worst part of a bad deal.

Now, getting back to those Iranian bomb aspirations.

The current, repressive anti-american dictatorship in Iran seems to have some nuclear weapons aspirations.

The former, repressive american sponsored dictatorship in Iran seems to have had some nuclear weapons aspirations.

To me, this says that there is something in the weltanschauung of whatever passes for the patrician class in Iran that makes them feel that acquisition of said weapons is an imperative. The next government of Iran regardless of stripe or means of ascension is going to contain some of these people. Ergo, it seems to me that there has to be a fundamental change in the regional security climate to make these folks not desire these systems or at least feel secure enough to put such projects on the shelf. Now don't press me on this one because it is beyond my current level of knowledge to even begin to speculate on how to crack that nut :confused: :frown: .

Somethings I do know that may have some bearing on our reasoning:

1. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink and if you do not even bother to put some water out your expectations should not be to high;

2. Punishment does not lead to the extinction of undesirable behavoir;

3. Intrinsic motivation is far, far more powerful, flexible, effective and reliable than any extrinsic motivation as yet conceived.

Regards,

William

Stan
24 Jul 06,, 15:18
i understand what your saying but they cannot ever be allowed to have nuclear weapons, if there was some sort of internal uprising and new government i would bet anything the last actions of a failing mad man like we have atm would be to send a going away present to isreal.

isreal is stuck with nutters all around it, know how they feel across our borders we have the same thing the welsh scots french and irish, infact maybe we could do a trade

Repatriated Canuck
30 Aug 06,, 15:07
i understand what your saying but they cannot ever be allowed to have nuclear weapons, if there was some sort of internal uprising and new government i would bet anything the last actions of a failing mad man like we have atm would be to send a going away present to isreal.

isreal is stuck with nutters all around it, know how they feel across our borders we have the same thing the welsh scots french and irish, infact maybe we could do a trade


You may stop posting now.


All very well said Swift Sword but I do have an issue with it.

The way I see it in regards to Iran is they are actively arming and have sponsored terrorist fighters on a ridiculous scale. What bothers and frightens me about them is that if they are willing to sponsor murderous scum like this what can we expect of them in the future?!??!

The west does not kidnap and behead people to further military or political aims. Arab extremists on the other hand do and they do it often. They have no problem blowing up civilians or anything else that annoys them or is offensive to their precious repressive beliefs. Essentially if Iran is in support of men like these then I feel they are just as responsible as if doing it themselves. If Iran gets the bomb so does some crazy nut who has no problem nuking himself and his own family in some twisted belief that Allah will take care of him. I do not feel we should give then an inch at all. I read a book you may find interesting called The Crisis of Islam, it really put a few things in perspective such as the way people see themselves. Us in the west identify with our own countries as an example Canada, US friendly rivalry. The nation of Islam and I mean nation see themselves as a religion first and country second. This is why they get so worked up over something that didn't even happen anywhere near them. Essentially piss one off piss them all of, likewise if Iran gets' nukes someone in a top position will share that knowledge end of story.

China, I'm not entirely sure of another scrap with them. Of course I am not fully informed of their situation but what I do know is that war is potentially bad for business and I doubt they want to destroy their own ambitions to become a world leader both militarily and economically. This commie thing is a fad nothing more, they are the worlds oldest capitalist society and I don't see a large scrap as inevitable as I see it with Iran.


Russia, honestly that place is such a mess I have no idea what they are planning other than do the opposite of the States just to annoy them. Well it seems that way anyhow. Any information you have that leads you to believe they will be a hassle would be appreciated.


I come from a rough part of Canada (it's true parts of Canada suck) called Surrey, car theft capitol of North America and a good shot at top spot murder slot in Canada. What I learned from living there is that when a bully or enemy says he's going to kick your ass it's best to listen and start making phone calls. The way I see it Iran is a bully and he's letting us know he wants to give us a kicking.

Please forgive the less than eloquent analogy. :redface:

smilingassassin
03 Sep 06,, 10:34
I agree, Iran with a nuke is a bad thing for alot of people, from whatever nation is on their **** list at the time they get the bomb.....

They will not hesitate to use a nuke when they believe in their hearts that an apocolyptic battle is inevitable and that they should prevail and spread islam world wide.

Commando
03 Sep 06,, 11:46
I agree, Iran with a nuke is a bad thing for alot of people, from whatever nation is on their **** list at the time they get the bomb.....

They will not hesitate to use a nuke when they believe in their hearts that an apocolyptic battle is inevitable and that they should prevail and spread islam world wide.

If Israel does not swiftly act i feel as if the Jewish state may cease to exist. It is up to their leaders to defend themselves, the Islamic governments are becoming stronger by the day. and it may be too late in a couple of years. anyone agree?

Bill
03 Sep 06,, 22:20
LOL, wow, Stan, yer a real friggin' nut aintcha?