Thread: Endgame in Iran?

Originally Posted by citanon

The Russians stood by when we went to war with Milosovic. I'm sure the Chinese would also stand by if we go to war with Iran. If you want war and not sanctions, then China's "close economic cooperation" with Iran doesn't matter one bit.

I would prefer sanctions, but if they don't work and the current regime gets close to a nuke I'll take war. I'm hoping that Russia & China getting stroppy with Tehran might encourage it to wake the f*ck up, but failing that I want as little fallout from this as possible.

Oops I should have. Yes, I agree that if the current regime is overthrown then our stance towards Iran should change. I hope you are not suggesting that we should base our policy towards the current regime on what we imagine to be the makeup and motivation of a new regime that might possibly exist if things go spectacularly our way in the unforeseeable future.

We need to be aware that any military action will most likely cripple the opposition for the forseeable future (which I believe we are), but that doesn't mean military action is off the table. Personally I'd prefer not to risk the consequences of attacking Iran unless it is absolutely necessary.

Originally Posted by citanon

I saw that article. If true this is one intifada I can support. Good luck to those protesters, I hope they succeed.

Something we can both agree on.

Originally Posted by pChan

Your premise would make sense if its Israel that is after Iran. No its the other way round. Iran has its proxy dogs aligned against Israel. If Iran wants security/defence it would be acting on these proxies. And these proxies & Iranian insistence on Israeli destrcution exist solely due to ideological reasons nothing to do with Iranian national security.

So Israel is the only nation capable of threatening Iran? Don't think so. America has invaded 2 neighbouring nations to remove governments it did not like. Pakistan is nuclear armed & its military has a history of promoting a version of Islam that considers Shia infidels. I'm not saying that iran is the poor little victim child, but lets not pretend that potential threats don't exist.

You are giving them nukes by advocating inaction now. Why advocate inaction then?

Because there is the possibility that internal developments in Iran will provide a resolution AND action will wreck the opposition in Iran AND the consequences of attacking Iran are so potentially horrendous that we have to be as sure as we can be that Iran is close to a nuke. That isn't the case yet, otherwise you & I wouldn't be talking about potential regime change.

"International opinion" means squat here. Sanctions won't stop this regime. I believe Bush will have clobbered Iran when its time and Obama will not. That alone matters.

International opinion will most definately matter. If this goes down it will be a sh1tstorm of the highest order. America will need as many friends & as few enemies as it can arrange.

As for what you believe, the first is unproveable & the latter unproven.

Iran was never a regional power. Not then not now. It was isolated then and its isolated now. It just doesn't have saddams army facing it in its western border. An army already weakened by the west and its absence will by no means make Iran a "regional power".

Iran is more powerful now than any time since the mullahs took power. It is less isolated now than at any time since the mullahs took power (well, perhaps a bit more isolated now than it was 6 months ago). Bush botched the whole Iran situation.

Originally Posted by pChan

Y
You are giving them nukes by advocating inaction now. Why advocate inaction then?

Has it occured to you that with the U.S trying to wrap up action in Iraq, and bring it's strategy to a successful head in Afghanistan - MUCH of which needs the co-operation of neighbours with relatively normal links to countries around Afghanistan (Iran was actually an early donor nation to Afghanistan for instance) Makes for some perplexing issues.

Iraq and Afghanistan are exceedingly expensive wars. The U.S Budget, everyone acknowledges - is looking atrocious

Just what on earth makes one think that U.S intelligence is not working overtime in threat assessment of Iran, and constantly informing the Pentagon / The POTUS about this.

All this presupposes that the POTUS is simply doing absolutely squat, because joe public have not heard anything, or heard a newspaper source that said attack was imminent. Is a belief that a game plan exists misplaced faith? Or it just realistic that these threat assessments are undertaken regularly as part of agencies respective charters? (Can we agree on this?)

The earliest credible Intel assessment says 2012.

The National intelligence Estimate here says 2015:
www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

Most recently the State Department and the Director of National Intelligence says 2013. - Available here.
IRAN: Nuclear Capability After 2013, Says U.S. Intelligence - IPS ipsnews.net

The very damn Cheif of Mossad, Meir Dagan, says 2014.

Now, that makes me reference Two Credible Agencies & Two People in the one post, with links. Does that make me feel my take on the situation on the matter is justified as one of the "Joe Publics" - you bet it does.

I said it in other post, then somewhat left under the cries of 'appeaser' even though easily by any stretch of the imagination seemingly reasonable / justifiable to have . Military action right now does not appear to be necessary least of all when we can continue the diplomatic process with time on ones hands, either to solidify resolve about inevitable action / and garner support, when we seem VERY hard pressed to conclude the current 2 wars successfully without opening up a third, at a Time when a campaign right now, could well get the regime out of the shite by galvanising the country.

That doesn't mean not supporting now makes dissenters Leftist apologist thrush monkeys.

If anything, the pull out from Iraq, and the warnings to Afghanistan, and Obama's comments about the diplomatic hand not being open for eternity, COUPLED WITH what he is likely being told by his security Agencies, seems to recognise the very real possibility of war with Iran.

So, why, after 8 years, when we damn well & sure know that simply bombing a country without occupation isn't the way to confident future security, and with many thousands of lives lost, should WE want to enter yet another war right now with 2 other major conflicts with other many questions lingering about them, Would you want to enter another war, right now when it seems that any action would inevitably require the complete submission or the Iranian state to our will, i.e until we are satisfied, that the state of Iran, and any individuals in it, have absolutely no chance in hell of developing a bomb - again.

Apart from Air/Naval Support - which countries of the ABCA alliance are going to be willing to send any more than a token force when they are Busy with troops in Afghanistan and arn't willing to contribute more troops there despite being asked, in fact just the opposite.

You might think this a load of shite, but with several re-armament programs underway, Several of the ABCA countries are able to contribute SIGNIFICANTLY MORE to a campaign around 2012, than what they are now... So why bomb now when the campaign is likely to require utter submission anyway?

Is there a technical reason that justifies the increased risk? Because as one of Joe Public, right now seems like a bad idea.

Some sort of response to the comment seriously without inferring apologist/appeaser/heartfelt strings about the imminent destruction of Israel if we don't act right now would be considerably appreciated.

If trusting intelligence for War in 2003 was good then, then we might as well apply the same argument now.