Endgame in Iran?

**Countezero** · 29 Dec 09, 21:13

Originally Posted by Parihaka

You can say it as many times as you like but until you can actually demonstrate how, people are just going to continue to laugh at you.

They can laugh all they want. I don't give a shit. I've demonstrated, several times, how I think Iran can hurt the US and the region. The fact the groupthink around here doesn't agree with me is just a difference of opinion (and at the end of the day, we're all guessing, so who really knows?).

But if you want specifics, there's Hezbollah, Hamas, Shia brigades in Iraq, missiles capable of hitting our ships, etc. What I find amazing is that you seem to think we would emerge totally unscathed.

S2 · 29 Dec 09, 21:19

The U.S. won't occupy Iran. We'll bomb it. And continue bombing it until it occupies itself with behavior acceptable to the region and the global community as a whole.

Should Iran wish to cause havoc in the region as a result of said bombings, it'll incur further destruction from its choice of making proxy war on others. That, of course, will be the only means of retaliation Iran possesses with the USN and USAF establishing a no-fly zone over all of Iran and its navy, airforce, and Pasdaran destroyed.

While they're assymmetrically popping away with POG (Party of God), HAMAS, and the remnants of the Sadr militia, we'll be responding deeper into our target list of nat'l infrastructure that weighs upon the entire populace. Meanwhile, it's not as though our armed forces in the region won't be assuming we've been made targets. I rather imagine that we'll have a close eye on those matters relevant to our security in the area.

Who cries "uncle" first loses. That won't be America if we let the dogs loose.

An Iranian nuke, employed or just a "force in being" is unacceptable to the region. Period. That's what needs to be understood. It's from this premise that all else follows.

S2 · 29 Dec 09, 21:28

"But if you want specifics, there's Hezbollah, Hamas, Shia brigades in Iraq, missiles capable of hitting our ships, etc. What I find amazing is that you seem to think we would emerge totally unscathed."

Do you have the requisite technical acumen to assess their ability to strike our navy? Do you have the same with respect to Iran's capabilities in Iraq? Why should I care about POG (Party of God) and HAMAS? How does that affect America's determination that Iran shall not become a nuclear capable Persian gulf hegemon?

I'm unconvinced that you're competent to render a judgement relative to Iran's ability to retaliate against America. I'm equally unconvinced why you presume the cost of retaliation exceeds our determination to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state and should therefore mollify our intent.

There's no more talking left. That's been exhausted and all parties engaged in such have failed. There's nothing John Kerry can say to Iran that they haven't already heard, considered, and rejected.

Countezero, you're desperate for a peaceful solution but have offered no pathway to reach such that hasn't been already tried. That leaves functional acquiescence and rationalization as your final recourse. That convinces me that you're lost your balance on this issue.

**Dreadnought** · 29 Dec 09, 21:35

All I'm asking is that you to include a turbulent region and horrendous bloody reprisals in you analysis of hitting Iran. Right now, your thinking reminds me of pre-Iraq. Yes, we will steamroll them. . . And then what? We're in a mess now precisely because too few people asked that question and were allowed to consider the more frightening possibilities. I think and attack on Iran could open a huge can of worms. Or maybe not. Maybe nothing happens. Who knows?

*Remove politics and Irans a dead duck. Period. They will not be allowed a nuclear weapon. Obamas in with Israel will last but so far when it comes to their future. Obama has already scorned them once, twice wouldnt make much difference to them and they are adimate about it.

Apparently, you're unfamiliar with the exercise in which the US Navy got its ass handed to it in the Gulf?

Getting your "ass handed to you" during an exercise is nothing more then a learning experience pure and simple. It happens quite often if you have noticed. Thats precisely why the "exercise" is an exercise. There is no country upon the globe that can even match them at sea.

*The fallout of such a conflict will leave them crippled no doubt but compare that to allowing them a nuclear weapon to threaten others with and you have already made the choice.

*If you recall Saddam was high and mighty as well and played the very same game that is now in its ending stages for Iran. I'm sure those forces are far more experienced then the last time.

Totally unscathed, nope, it dont happen that way, but, totally unafraid of an evil regime that loathes every other human except themselves. What do we really have to fear, but fear itself.

**Countezero** · 29 Dec 09, 21:39

Originally Posted by S-2

Do you have the requisite technical acumen to assess their ability to strike our navy? Do you have the same with respect to Iran's capabilities in Iraq? Why should I care about POG (Party of God) and HAMAS? How does that affect America's determination that Iran shall not become a nuclear capable Persian gulf hegemon?

You're right. I should just shutup and agree with everyone. That seems to be the motif around here.

Originally Posted by S-2

I'm unconvinced that you're competent to render a judgement relative to Iran's ability to retaliate against America.

I'm unconvinced you have the ability to pass judgment on me at all, but that hasn't stopped you, has it? For the record, I think I am far more qualified to assess the political ramifications of the issue, but the qualifications aren't really the issue here and most everyone can make relevant points, regardless of their training and experience. But yeah, if you want to wave the practitioner stick around, and in doing so, exhibit some of the uglier stereotypes of the military, then by all means, do it. Just remember this is about nothing more serious than a legitimate difference of opinion. It's not personal. I don't even know you.

Originally Posted by S-2

I'm equally unconvinced why you presume the cost of retaliation exceeds our determination to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state and should therefore mollify our intent.

I don't know that it does. I don't know that anybody knows that. All we can do is speculate right now.

Originally Posted by S-2

There's no more talking left. That's been exhausted and all parties engaged in such have failed. There's nothing John Kerry can say to Iran that they haven't already heard, considered, and rejected.

Countezero, you're desperate for a peaceful solution but have offered no pathway to reach such that hasn't been already tried. That leaves functional acquiescence and rationalization as your final recourse. That convinces me that you're lost your balance on this issue.

Well, there is plenty more talking that could be done, and I've suggested as much. But suggesting that I "desperate" for a peaceful solutions is hogwash. I'm simply not ready -- yet -- to start bombing another Muslim country and all that this would entail. I may get there, as I respond to events on the ground and am not locked into to any preordained conclusion. You, on the other hand, seem like you are.

**Mihais** · 29 Dec 09, 21:50

Originally Posted by Countezero

You're right. I should just shutup and agree with everyone. That seems to be the motif around here.

Try heart surgery done by an IT expert.See what you get.

Originally Posted by Countezero

Well, there is plenty more talking that could be done, and I've suggested as much. But suggesting that I "desperate" for a peaceful solutions is hogwash. I'm simply not ready -- yet -- to start bombing another Muslim country and all that this would entail. I may get there, as I respond to events on the ground and am not locked into to any preordained conclusion. You, on the other hand, seem like you are.

Please enlighten dumb,nazi-esque ,crusading military men of what could be said to convince the Iranian leadership.

**Parihaka** · 29 Dec 09, 22:01

Originally Posted by Countezero

What I find amazing is that you seem to think we would emerge totally unscathed.

I very much doubt you have any idea what I think. Your thinking however, is all too obvious

Yeah. That girl got sharp with me too in another thread. Somebody else told me this is full of military people should I just get used to being barked at. I was tempted to write back that if I wanted to be yelled at by someone I knew wasn't as smart as me, I would have joined the military and not this forum, but I restrained myself...

source

You claim contact and in-depth knowledge of intelligence circles, yet were unaware of the nature of the cold war dealings in forging the US Israel alliance, and when you come across a real intelligence analyst and section leader you deign to tell him he and the rest of the intelligence community is wrong.

To quote S-2 "I'm unconvinced that you're competent to render a judgement relative to Iran's ability to retaliate against America. "

I'm even more convinced that your not here to either learn or debate, merely pontificate from your self belief of superiority, unsupported by fact.

S2 · 29 Dec 09, 22:05

"I'm unconvinced you have the ability to pass judgment on me at all, but that hasn't stopped you, has it?"

No, it hasn't stopped me one bit. I reached my conclusions based upon your preparedness to weigh some unguided rockets by POG and HAMAS targeted at Israel against the threat of Iran gaining nuclear weapons. There's no proportionality to your weighing the threat of acquiring nuclear weapons against the risk of Iranian retaliation by these asymmetric means.

"yeah, if you want to wave the practitioner stick around, and in doing so, exhibit some of the uglier stereotypes of the military..."

It was you that equivocated the acquisition of nukes with Iranian asymmetric retaliation.

They're not the same. Retaliation is far more bearable than Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. What has Iran exhibited that has made you feel that acquiring nuclear weapons would be preferable to facing Iranian retaliation? Please, can you elaborate the scenarios that should compel the U.S. gov't to acquiesce to Iran's nuclear ambitions?

"I respond to events on the ground and am not locked into to any preordained conclusion. You, on the other hand, seem like you are."

Does that mean respond to an accomplished fact of Iran possessing nuclear weapons? Too late at that point.

Preordained it may have been given Iran's determination to pursue these weapons and the consistent subterfuge in which they've engaged. This could be a great kabuki theatre where the roles and end-result were ordained from the beginning. I think so.

Pre-disposed on my part to make war on Iran, however, is irrelevant. Regardless of how I saw events play out six years ago hasn't yet happened and, instead, those in power have chosen to talk at every turn, just as you wish...

...till this point.

You seem prepared to talk more. With whom and about what, may I ask?

**Parihaka** · 29 Dec 09, 22:20

Originally Posted by Countezero

For the record, I think I am far more qualified to assess the political ramifications of the issue,

Really. What exactly are those qualifications.

**Mihais** · 29 Dec 09, 22:29

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Really. What exactly are those qualifications.

That statement made sure I'll sleep with a joyous mood.
Wow,Pari you need to learn about the ways of the world

.Everyone is qualified to talk about football and politics

**Countezero** · 29 Dec 09, 23:00

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Your thinking however, is all too obvious

source

Really?

That's quite a talent you have...

An angry remark said in a semi-private setting to an old friend says less about me and more about your motives and your methods. But feel free to judge all you want, as that seems to be what you want to do. If you truly had a concern, you could just ask me a question -- or try to talk to me like a semi-human being.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

You claim contact and in-depth knowledge of intelligence circles, yet were unaware of the nature of the cold war dealings in forging the US Israel alliance,

Actually, I mentioned it quite specifically here:

What does the USA get from it's relationship with Israel?

I wrote:

"I think we latched onto Israel early in the Cold War to balance against Nassar and the Egyptians, but I could be wrong about that. This is not an area of history I know well."

In other words, I qualified my remarks, because it is not my area of expertise. That's an obvious dose of humility from someone you later accuse of being invested in superiority. If you notice in this thread, too, I hold up my hand when I do not know something. But to return to the topic you dragged into this thread, I later added:

"I do know that CIA's James Angleton forged a relationship with the Mossad very early on and that this is what blossomed into the current intel sharing between the two nations. Israel gave up good dirt on the Soviets in the ME, and the Mossand famously got hold of Khruschev's remarks to the Politburo about Stalin and gave them to the US."

I would say that's pretty detailed ignorance, but then you would accuse me of acting superior again...

Originally Posted by Parihaka

and when you come across a real intelligence analyst and section leader you deign to tell him he and the rest of the intelligence community is wrong.

I come across real intelligence analysts every day. None have ever acted like him. And all I did was disagree with him, and he chose to be a boorish ass about it. So I gave it back to him. No harm no foul.

He doesn't speak for the intelligence community, either. So far as I know, only the DNI does that.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

I'm even more convinced that your not here to either learn or debate, merely pontificate from your self belief of superiority, unsupported by fact.

It's tough to debate whenever the other side immediately reaches for the personal attacks, which is essentially what the bulk of your post here is. What did you hope to accomplish with this? The forum guidelines speak of dealing with things in private, but you dragged all this here, and why? Because I don't agree with you? I confess the attitude of some on this site does continue to confuse me.

**tankie** · 29 Dec 09, 23:05

I love this idea of democracy ,,,not , yea c,mon lets have God be blamed , or Allah , or Jedi,s ,,,, wankers

Reuters Parisa Hafezi and Reza Derakhsh

A representative of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Tuesday opposition leaders were "enemies of God" who should be executed under the country's sharia law.

The statement by cleric Abbas Vaez-Tabasi coincided with rallies by tens of thousands of government supporters calling for opposition leaders to be punished for fomenting unrest after June's disputed presidential election, state media said.

"Those who are behind the current sedition in the country ... are mohareb (enemies of God) and the law is very clear about punishment of a mohareb," the representative of Khamenei, who possesses ultimate authority in Iran, said on state television.

Under Iran's Islamic sharia law the sentence for "mohareb" is execution.

Vaez-Tabasi's remarks came two days after eight people were killed in anti-government protests sparked by the June poll which was won by hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Political turmoil has entered a new phase in Iran marked by bloody face-offs and arrests, with security forces calling on authorities to deal "firmly" with opposition leaders.

The establishment intensified a crackdown on the reform movement on Sunday by rounding up leading moderates to try to end street protests after the deadly weekend clashes erupted during the Shi'ite Muslim religious ritual of Ashura.

At least 20 opposition figures have been arrested since Sunday, including three senior advisers to opposition leader Mirhossein Mousavi, his brother-in-law and a sister of Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi, opposition websites said.

Ebadi said on French radio France Info that Iranian authorities were trying to silence her by arresting her sister.

"This arrest is illegal because my sister is a dentist, she is not in any way active in human rights or politics ... and she didn't participate in any protests," Ebadi said.

She said intelligence officials entered her sister's house on Monday night to arrest her without a warrant, rifled through her belongings and confiscated computers.

"BLOODY REPRESSION"

After U.S. President Barack Obama's condemnation on Monday of Iran's "iron fist of brutality" against protesters, French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Tuesday condemned "the bloody repression of the protests in Iran."

"(France) calls for an end to the violence, the release of all jailed opposition activists and respect for human rights," Sarkozy said in a statement.

The elite Revolutionary Guards accused the foreign media of joining hands with the opposition to harm the Islamic state. The British ambassador to Tehran was summoned by the Iranian government to be accused of "interference" in state matters.

"If Britain does not stop talking nonsense it will get a slap in the mouth," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said. The British government said their envoy would respond "robustly" to any criticism.

On Tuesday, state TV showed footage of huge pro-government rallies in various cities, with demonstrators carrying pictures of the late founder of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The crowed chanted: "The blood in our veins is a gift to our leader Khamenei" and "Death to hypocrites."

"Trying to overthrow the system will reach nowhere ... designers of the unrest will soon pay the cost of their insolence," the Revolutionary Guards said in a statement. "The opposition, which has joined hands with the foreign media, is backed by foreign enemies."

WAR OF WORDS

The wife of another opposition leader, Mehdi Karoubi, who was fourth in the June vote, said the establishment "was responsible for the safety of her family," the opposition Jaras website said. "My family and I do not enjoy any security against the rogue forces' nightly attacks," said Fatemeh Karoubi.

Jaras reported that hardliners attacked offices of moderate cleric Grand Ayatollah Yusef Sanei in various cities.

In a heated war of words, the reformist Islamic Iran's Participation Front said in a statement: "The only way out of the current crisis is for the authorities to respect the law and apologise to the nation."

Jaras said fresh clashes took place at a Tehran university and also in the central city of Shiraz between students and security forces. The reports could not be independently verified because of restrictions on foreign media covering protests.

Iranian authorities say eight people were killed in clashes on Sunday when supporters of Mousavi used the Ashura religious festival to stage fresh anti-government rallies.

Authorities blame what they call foreign-backed "terrorist groups" for the killings, including the death of Mousavi's nephew Ali Habibi Mousavi Khamene.

When the June 12 presidential election returned Ahmadinejad to power by a wide margin, thousands of Iranians took to the streets in the biggest anti-government demonstrations in the 30-year history of the Islamic Republic. Authorities reject opposition accusations of vote fraud.

**citanon** · 29 Dec 09, 23:07

Originally Posted by Countezero

I'm not reading pages of wiki in search of a point you've failed to make. If you want to make an argument, make one. You can't just link to "Gaza" and pretend that proves a point.

The Gaza operation was the point. I suggest that you read it, look into how Israeli training and strategy has changed since the recent Lebanon war, and then reassess Hezbollah's chances against Israel in a new conflict.

In case you don't, let me summarize for you: Hezbollah will get creamed.

**Countezero** · 29 Dec 09, 23:11

Originally Posted by citanon

The Gaza operation was the point. I suggest that you read it, look into how Israeli training and strategy has changed since the recent Lebanon war, and then reassess Hezbollah's chances against Israel in a new conflict.

In case you don't, let me summarize for you: Hezbollah will get creamed.

Hezbollah obviously gets creamed by Israel in a straight up fight, just like the Taliban do whenever they face our troops. The issue, though, is that oftentimes it's not a straight up fight, and terrorists like Hezbollah and the Taliban get to punch well above their weight, so to speak, because they hit civilian targets and then hide behind them. That makes it hard to eradicate them. In Israel's case, it has to resort to some fairly harsh tactics -- and in the end those tactics only manage the problem, they don't get rid of it, and Israel gets all kinds of political hell.

S2 · 29 Dec 09, 23:29

Here's a link for Tankie's Reuters article-

Reuters AlertNet - Iran opposition leaders face execution-Khamenei aide Dec. 29, 2009

Doesn't change a thing, though. I don't think I could trust a democratic Iran with a nuke like Great Britain or France. We may lose the opposition in Iran unless they were to renounce any ambitions for nuclear weapons and their preparedness to dismember any active programs under internat'l supervision.

As matters stand, I'm not particularly overwhelmed in any case. Most of the opposition has rallied around dissident clerics. How that shakes out WRT internat'l relations might prove questionable. Bluntly, we may be facing a variation of a theme, discernable internally but promising no change in its external outlook.

To know more, we need the history behind those providing both intellectual and functional resistance. My suspicion is that we're WAAAAY behind the eight-ball in developing meaningful portfolios of the key opposition players and their broader political views. Maybe not and that only reflects my own lack of information.

We can and should condemn. It's heartening to see Sarkozy and the POTUS add their weight to internat'l condemnation. Whether these events should play a role WRT our options concerning Iranian nukes, I'm unsure how. The timelines to develop a promising counter-weight, while accelerating in our favor, doesn't seem likely to catch up with the Iranian nuke program.

That, btw, raises a more dangerous question-how does an Iran which possesses nuclear weapons react to an internal rebellion or full-fledged revolution?

Thread: Endgame in Iran?

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

Iranian Retaliation

Countezero Reply

Countezero Reply

A Link

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

US exports to Iran increase in Bush years

Stopping Iran:Why the Case For Military Action Still Stands

When Is Islamic Terrorism Actually "Anti-Islamic Activity"?

Candidates, How would you grapple with Iran's nuclear drive?

A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions