PDA

View Full Version : Iran Intervention and Break-UP



cyppok
19 Jul 12,, 18:19
If we go into Iran and break it up theoretically the map from Afghanistan through the Syria coastline is up for re-drawing.

29629

Balochistan is definetely a possible seperate state with intervention but even the oil rich Ahwaz region thats Arab and close to Iraq could possibly be cut off if the pressure is there.

Theoretically if the country disintegrates there is a possibility to get a state going in the north that would separate Iran from the Caspian Sea, {Talishistan+Mazandaranistan}. This would completely change Iran from having very low reserves of Oil & Gas since most of them are in the Caspian Sea and the Ahwaz arab province near Iraq there are reserves elsewhere but not as large.

Why I bring it up...
Three US Aircraft Carriers Now In The Middle East With Fourth En Route | ZeroHedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/three-us-aircraft-carriers-now-middle-east-fourth-en-route)

Iran has about 160 planes.
While 4-5 carriers about 240-300 depending how many per. Guessing it pushes air superiority 2-1. It is probably 3-1 or 4-1 since a lot of those planes are not that well taken care of. This is discounting the AA ofcourse and how it performs, as well as the Naval Anti Ship missiles etc...

The interesting thing is the Azerbaidjan part which theoretically could become Republic of Azeibardjan #2 since most people there would rather not be under the dictatorship of the current secular government in Azeibardjan #1. South Azeibardanistan lets call it then.

Chunder
21 Jul 12,, 03:42
What is interesting is that all Tehran has to do is threaten to close the straights of Hormuz without actually having any intention of doing so, to Cost the U.S Taxpayer Hundreds of Millions if not Billions in deployment costs and inconvenience leave patterns for 10's of thousands of men....

cyppok
21 Jul 12,, 03:58
What is interesting is that all Tehran has to do is threaten to close the straights of Hormuz without actually having any intention of doing so, to Cost the U.S Taxpayer Hundreds of Millions if not Billions in deployment costs and inconvenience leave patterns for 10's of thousands of men....

Technically the deployment costs are ongoing already (Iraq/Afghanistan). The Carrier groups would have been sailing anyways and are already outfitted so their marginal readiness costs to already ones being paid is not as big.

I think we are being lulled into a perception that all these deployments and posturing are because of Iran. The real expectations are seeming to align to completely revamp the geopolitical structure of the region.

My sense is that the world is tired of this inter ethnic manipulation that goes outside the region due to non-physical intervention (ergo economic interaction between regimes and the world as a whole). All of these covert shadow wars supporting rebel groups based on advertised affiliations of one sort or another is to some degree forcing a blank slate approach to put the impetus on internal deconstruction within these states. So in a sense physical borders becoming more aligned with non-proliferation of ambitions based on ethnic/sect or other ties. In Europe the constant re-setting of border to shifting population migrations through wars from 1800-1920s sort of intensified in the Mid east it seems to have emerged from a stupor of colonial inducement of atrophy by external aspects.

Tronic
21 Jul 12,, 05:23
Why break-up Iran?

cyppok
21 Jul 12,, 14:03
Why break-up Iran?

Regime change, stratification of oil and gas resources and pipelines.

Caspian Oil development and Pipelines from Mid-East via Turkey to Europe. Control of flow into the market via ports. etc... More countries with smaller populations easier to "induce" compliance.

Also political safety reasons Iran funds a lot of groups that it sees as vengeance for global political actions against it thus it would remove their retaliation via shadow network funding.

troung
21 Jul 12,, 20:44
Another classic from cypoke :rolleyes:

Iran is larger and more populated then Afghanistan - a nation we will be leaving tails between legs and our military has already shown they are unable to control the violence there. Only a complete and utter idiot (OP has shown he fits the bill) would think it would be a good idea for our heavily in debt nation to march our army into Iran and break the place up giving us another decade at war and flushing hundreds of billions down the toilet.

There are no troops, there is no international support, there is no domestic support, etc...

Don't quit your day job - if you have one.

snapper
23 Jul 12,, 12:15
Bit rude... But if you disagree please tell us how you expect any attack on Iran to unfold troung. Perhaps you are not concerned over a nuclear Iran? If you are then presumably you see there will arise a necessity for action. What then?

cyppok
23 Jul 12,, 13:19
I actually was thinking that Iran will fail from inside out due to food costs going intro stratosphere and population rising up. This can actually be achieved very simply by spending a few hundred million dollars perhaps a billion over two to three years. {Very simple exercise to be quiet honest buy up all the 'exportable' wheat that is produced in Kazakhstan over Two years and ship it out of the region} On the margin this will double or tripple bread prices in Iran, even if Russia ships excess grain. Technically the US can resell it at a mild loss elsewhere ergo Japan/China at pacific shippoints in Russia after it is shipped out. (Russia produces lots of wheat but Kazakh wheat is more bread quality not forage[for animals] so food wise more impactful on Iran since that is the major buyer of it in the region)

But zerohedge is convincing since the carrier groups are being moved.

Iran Increase Bread Prices by as Much as 33%, IRNA Reports - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-10/iran-increase-bread-prices-by-as-much-as-33-irna-reports.html)

Iranian authorities increased the price of traditional breads by as much as 33 percent in the capital, Tehran, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported, citing a Tehran province official.

A Sangak loaf will now cost 6,000 rials (49 cents), said Nematollah Torki Tehran’s governor deputy for planning. Barbari, Taftoun and Lavash loaves will cost 5,000, 3,000 and 1,600 rials respectively, he said in the report published late yesterday.

The new prices will apply in Tehran bakeries from today, he said, according to the report.

troung
24 Jul 12,, 02:53
Bit rude... But if you disagree please tell us how you expect any attack on Iran to unfold troung. Perhaps you are not concerned over a nuclear Iran? If you are then presumably you see there will arise a necessity for action. What then?

Is there are option that we won't be attacking them for the foreseeable future?

We would NOT be putting ground troops in there and our interests are not helped by Balkanizing that nation.

Skywatcher
25 Jul 12,, 01:46
I actually was thinking that Iran will fail from inside out due to food costs going intro stratosphere and population rising up. This can actually be achieved very simply by spending a few hundred million dollars perhaps a billion over two to three years. {Very simple exercise to be quiet honest buy up all the 'exportable' wheat that is produced in Kazakhstan over Two years and ship it out of the region} On the margin this will double or tripple bread prices in Iran, even if Russia ships excess grain. Technically the US can resell it at a mild loss elsewhere ergo Japan/China at pacific shippoints in Russia after it is shipped out. (Russia produces lots of wheat but Kazakh wheat is more bread quality not forage[for animals] so food wise more impactful on Iran since that is the major buyer of it in the region)

But zerohedge is convincing since the carrier groups are being moved.

Iran Increase Bread Prices by as Much as 33%, IRNA Reports - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-10/iran-increase-bread-prices-by-as-much-as-33-irna-reports.html)

The ayatollahs falling does not equal to Iran disintegrating.

Stitch
25 Jul 12,, 06:02
Interesting piece in strafor.com this week; the situation in Syria is actually affecting Iran in a negative way. If & when Syria falls (and gambling people are betting that it WILL), Iran will pretty much have NO allies left in the region; China & Russia may be "supporting" Syria at the present time, but both countries also have their own agenda, and neither one is planning on Syria being around much longer in it's present state. China & Russia might be idelogical, but they're not stupid, either; both countries are currently "hedging thier bets" against Assad's fall.

Consequences of the Fall of the Syrian Regime | Stratfor (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/consequences-fall-syrian-regime)

citanon
25 Jul 12,, 06:43
Interesting piece in strafor.com this week; the situation in Syria is actually affecting Iran in a negative way. If & when Syria falls (and gambling people are betting that it WILL), Iran will pretty much have NO allies left in the region; China & Russia may be "supporting" Syria at the present time, but both countries also have their own agenda, and neither one is planning on Syria being around much longer in it's present state. China & Russia might be idelogical, but they're not stupid, either; both countries are currently "hedging thier bets" against Assad's fall.

Consequences of the Fall of the Syrian Regime | Stratfor (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/consequences-fall-syrian-regime)

Iran and Hezbollah will both be pretty lonely, and all those chemical weapons in Syria will look pretty tempting to Hezbollah as the regime nears the end.

cyppok
25 Jul 12,, 14:29
Interesting piece in strafor.com this week; the situation in Syria is actually affecting Iran in a negative way. If & when Syria falls (and gambling people are betting that it WILL), Iran will pretty much have NO allies left in the region; China & Russia may be "supporting" Syria at the present time, but both countries also have their own agenda, and neither one is planning on Syria being around much longer in it's present state. China & Russia might be idelogical, but they're not stupid, either; both countries are currently "hedging thier bets" against Assad's fall.

Consequences of the Fall of the Syrian Regime | Stratfor (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/consequences-fall-syrian-regime)

I partly agree the reality with the hedging is there.
The problem is that Iraq is already more or less under Iranian influence, remember that shia cleric Muqtada from Baghdad, and the majority Shia in the region, ya. The problem with Assad falling is that it creates a sectarian conflict. Iraq is both sectarian and ethnic with Kurds/Arabs.

If the US succeeds in making pan-arab secularism build on Iraq-Syria dynamic post regime change it would be a very interesting region with majorities and minorities and anti-Iran in nature since their trade ties to US, Europe and world wide would take precedence against 'trade gravity' payoff wise.

The delusion in the article is that Iraq is less and less dependent while the reality is since it is trade viable most of trade gets routed to Iran via cross border arbitrage. Ergo things that go to Basra get to Iran via trucks and other ways for common people making money. This is destabilizing in a way as it creates an economic dependence in the region for goods and cash flows that set in patterns that are hard to reverse. The beauty of this strategy is that it creates a productivity malaise in Iran since the goods being moved cross border will have lower and uncompetitive prices for Iranian producers due to lack of depth/breadth of production.

Downside is thus if oil cash flow falters due to production prices for goods become far more sensitive than usual. Ergo when 1000 units of pants go through the border and cost $4 dollars and 500 units go and cost 5 dollars while simultaneously Iranian forex falls (by 10-20%) in value due to cash flow variability the actual prices for goods could be variable above 50%+. In real life ofcouse those that already shipped the 1000 would dump them at prices that make them break even or better causing Iranian producers of pants to go broke as capital extracted by cross border trade destroys Iranian capital...

The reality would be is Iran would be very tempted to force equal trade parameters but even that wouldn't fix the goods arbitrage going via one port disseminated through the border.

1980s
28 Jul 12,, 19:12
Balochistan is definetely a possible seperate state with intervention but even the oil rich Ahwaz region thats Arab and close to Iraq could possibly be cut off if the pressure is there.

Theoretically if the country disintegrates there is a possibility to get a state going in the north that would separate Iran from the Caspian Sea, {Talishistan+Mazandaranistan}. This would completely change Iran from having very low reserves of Oil & Gas since most of them are in the Caspian Sea and the Ahwaz arab province near Iraq there are reserves elsewhere but not as large.

Why I bring it up...
Three US Aircraft Carriers Now In The Middle East With Fourth En Route | ZeroHedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/three-us-aircraft-carriers-now-middle-east-fourth-en-route)

Iran has about 160 planes.
While 4-5 carriers about 240-300 depending how many per. Guessing it pushes air superiority 2-1. It is probably 3-1 or 4-1 since a lot of those planes are not that well taken care of. This is discounting the AA ofcourse and how it performs, as well as the Naval Anti Ship missiles etc...

The interesting thing is the Azerbaidjan part which theoretically could become Republic of Azeibardjan #2 since most people there would rather not be under the dictatorship of the current secular government in Azeibardjan #1. South Azeibardanistan lets call it then.

Khuzestan isnt an exclusively Arab region. Saddam had banked on pan-Arab nationalism and so attempted to detach it permanently from Iran in 1980. The Iranian-Arab population resisted the invasion like the rest of the Iranian people and the Iraqis were expelled in 1982.

Baluchestan isnt economically viable as a separate state outside of Iran. Its a lightly-populated desert expanse with serious social and crime problems, mainly drug running. It is also the least educated province in Iran, and most poverty stricken.

Shomal (Gilan and Mazandaran) are no different from Persian-speaking provinces, except for the Gilaki and Mazandarani languages which evolved in a separate direction from Persian. The Russians tried to detach the north from Iran. They failed. This land is as inseparable from Iran as Pars region is. The name 'Mazandaranistan' btw is cute, and one of the stupidest things i have ever heard.

And as for Azerbaijan, the Turks (Ottomans) and Russians (Imperial and Soviet) both tried to detach this region from Iran numerous times. They too, failed. Azerbaijan has no separate history or existence from that of Iran.

1980s
28 Jul 12,, 19:20
The problem is that Iraq is already more or less under Iranian influence

No it isnt. Iraq is barely a functioning state and there is little cohesion amongst its various political factions, including amongst the competing Shi'a ones. The government in Baghdad can hardly control the Arab portion of Iraq, let alone Kurdistan which is all but formally an independent state. You over estimate Iran's influence in Iraq.

There are Sunni jihadist factions dotted all over Iraq and Syria calling for holy war against Iran once Assad has been toppled. Hardly a promising sign for so-called Iranian influence in the country.

cyppok
29 Jul 12,, 00:11
Khuzestan isnt an exclusively Arab region. Saddam had banked on pan-Arab nationalism and so attempted to detach it permanently from Iran in 1980. The Iranian-Arab population resisted the invasion like the rest of the Iranian people and the Iraqis were expelled in 1982.

Baluchestan isnt economically viable as a separate state outside of Iran. Its a lightly-populated desert expanse with serious social and crime problems, mainly drug running. It is also the least educated province in Iran, and most poverty stricken.

Shomal (Gilan and Mazandaran) are no different from Persian-speaking provinces, except for the Gilaki and Mazandarani languages which evolved in a separate direction from Persian. The Russians tried to detach the north from Iran. They failed. This land is as inseparable from Iran as Pars region is. The name 'Mazandaranistan' btw is cute, and one of the stupidest things i have ever heard.

And as for Azerbaijan, the Turks (Ottomans) and Russians (Imperial and Soviet) both tried to detach this region from Iran numerous times. They too, failed. Azerbaijan has no separate history or existence from that of Iran.

Lots of "unworking" states worldwide doesn't mean they can't exist. The only thing stopping them is their will to go independent and the enforcement of that will. Baluchistan can exist and considering it has coasts its viable. Lots of deserts exist as countries...

The Russians did not fail they took it 300 years ago just gave it back for join Turkey war. Russians also didn't really try all that hard to be quiet honest. Everything is separable, everything changes and evolves. I am glad you like the names i made up:tongue:.

Bear in mind I am think of complete revamping of borders among ethnic lines from Pakistan through Syria for peaceful evolution something close to what happened in Europe after WW2... I am just saying its an interesting hypothetical on my end.

Azerbaidjan is in existance right now... granted only the Northern part but still it sort of gives a gravity to an ethnic state possibility. Also mind you I think the Azeris in Iran won't go for it unless things got really bad (like food costs going through the roof) AND treatment worsened etc... Right now the Alievs seem to be more corrupt with less opportunities than Iran offers integration wise class structure wise BUT things change...

The problem with Iran is that it thinks that stall tactics and agreements with the west where they pretend to go along with something and the west goes along with pretending they believe it doesn't work. Both parties need to check on one another in a sense and realize where agreement actually exists. Right now it seems Iran is very isolated and the worse offers it gets ( and believe me they will get worse ) the more it will feel it can turn them down (only correct up to a certain point). What is happening is that they constantly have to up the ante for everyone whom backs them Russia, China, to buy support. Sooner or later it will become an nonviable bargaining position.

P.S. don't take it so seriously its a "what if" scenario.
But imagine if as the conflict erupted USA promised China to let it participate in the Iranian oil sector post reconstruction, same to Russia along with geopolitical guarantees not to meddle too much up north. Now think that this would be offered while the gulf conflict started like they were bombing Iran already.

Also mind you there were Russian break up scenarios up the wazoo with Siberia going independent and whatnot by Cia analysts all the way up to 2000s... In Irans case a lot of chunks are ethnic/religious possibilities if you look at it pragmatically. Yes the balance of power in the region changes so much that the risk would only be viable for someone like USA whom would want regional fracture for resolution of international meddling by regional states in that part of the world.

Additional thought:
I was wondering what would happen if Kurdistan existed and realized that it would effectively seperate Turkey from Azerbaidjan and Turkic populated people in a similar way as Armenia does now. So if it existed while Iran was smaller (not much smaller just a little bit with Baluchistan, Ahwaz, Kurdish areas, and Azerbaidjan areas seperate (closer to a ball like shape like Romania with perhaps 40 million people or so). From a Russian perspective this would be OK. The problem is if Azerbaidjan had 20-30 million and Armenia 3-4, it would be overrun unless it was bolstered or borders were manipulated further.

Bigfella
29 Jul 12,, 01:41
Khuzestan isnt an exclusively Arab region. Saddam had banked on pan-Arab nationalism and so attempted to detach it permanently from Iran in 1980. The Iranian-Arab population resisted the invasion like the rest of the Iranian people and the Iraqis were expelled in 1982.

Baluchestan isnt economically viable as a separate state outside of Iran. Its a lightly-populated desert expanse with serious social and crime problems, mainly drug running. It is also the least educated province in Iran, and most poverty stricken.

Shomal (Gilan and Mazandaran) are no different from Persian-speaking provinces, except for the Gilaki and Mazandarani languages which evolved in a separate direction from Persian. The Russians tried to detach the north from Iran. They failed. This land is as inseparable from Iran as Pars region is. The name 'Mazandaranistan' btw is cute, and one of the stupidest things i have ever heard.

And as for Azerbaijan, the Turks (Ottomans) and Russians (Imperial and Soviet) both tried to detach this region from Iran numerous times. They too, failed. Azerbaijan has no separate history or existence from that of Iran.

People often overlook the power of national identity. Those Iranian Arabs fighting to stay part of a majority Persian nation did battle against an army largely made up of Shia soldiers who fought to the last against their co-religionists. Sometimes the world is more complex than people care to imagine.

cyppok
29 Jul 12,, 04:14
Like there wouldn't be repressions against them and their families if they didnt join and fight the invaders... The problem of inducement is you don't know the aspects on the ground and yes sometimes national identity does transpose over ethnicity, but usually not.

Stress on a national level leads to stress on national identity and the burden of proof. Japanese-American battalions proving themselves against the Japanese while their families were interned does enter into ones mind does it not?...

Bigfella
29 Jul 12,, 05:33
Like there wouldn't be repressions against them and their families if they didnt join and fight the invaders... The problem of inducement is you don't know the aspects on the ground and yes sometimes national identity does transpose over ethnicity, but usually not.

Stress on a national level leads to stress on national identity and the burden of proof. Japanese-American battalions proving themselves against the Japanese while their families were interned does enter into ones mind does it not?...

What a stunningly poor example. With a literal handful of exceptions Japanese-Americans proved themselves to be loyal Americans on and off the battlefield. Oh, and those 'battalions' served in the ETO. Individual Nissei served in the PTO as translators & in intelligence & such, but not units. I'm not aware that either Saddam or the Ayatollahs interned the families of those who chose their nation over their ethnic/religious group. It would have amounted to hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions. Even Stalin's regime coldn't manage such a successful enforcement of loyalty through fear.

Perhaps your formulations are simplistic & flawed.

Skywatcher
29 Jul 12,, 18:06
Like there wouldn't be repressions against them and their families if they didnt join and fight the invaders... The problem of inducement is you don't know the aspects on the ground and yes sometimes national identity does transpose over ethnicity, but usually not.

Stress on a national level leads to stress on national identity and the burden of proof. Japanese-American battalions proving themselves against the Japanese while their families were interned does enter into ones mind does it not?...

Frankly, you are an idiot. The Japanese Americans fought so valiantly in WWII for America despite repression, not because of it.

cyppok
29 Jul 12,, 19:06
Frankly, you are an idiot. The Japanese Americans fought so valiantly in WWII for America despite repression, not because of it.

Not denying that, the problem is free will and reality. In Iran as well as the US during WW2 it would have been socially unacceptable to not fight. Would these people have joined on their own free will without inducement? perhaps, but some might have not. Does national identity play a role sure it does but does ethnicity over come it in wars between that nation and the ethnic group, sometimes.

Turkish Kurds are probably fighting the PKK as well unless they didn't have to join the Turkish army.
Ukranian Cossacks fighting on the side of Polish Commonwealth against Khmelnitsky in their bid for Independent Ukraine.
Sure I am sure limited numbers of both happened the problem is was there inducement, yes, how far it went we don't know. Would have they done it free will maybe.

There are quiet a few examples of this.

But like I said before things have to shift socially and economically for ethnic struggle to take priority over the nation state that is treating their minorities well. I did say this before and repeat it again.

Skywatcher
24 Aug 12,, 15:14
Not denying that, the problem is free will and reality. In Iran as well as the US during WW2 it would have been socially unacceptable to not fight. Would these people have joined on their own free will without inducement? perhaps, but some might have not. Does national identity play a role sure it does but does ethnicity over come it in wars between that nation and the ethnic group, sometimes.


I'd forgotten about this travesty of intellectual exchange until this morning.

Does the 442nd Regiment, which had 22 Medal of Honor recipients from World War II (by far the most decorated unit of its size in American history), sound like it was put together because "it would have been socially unacceptable to not fight." Some inducement right there.