Thread: Endgame in Iran?

Originally Posted by Countezero

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.

You did not study the last war in sufficient detail. This was not the reason why Israel lost. Israel did not have a clear objective, committed major tactical and strategic errors, did not have the right training and tactics, and fought the war on Hezbollah's terms. (If you want a more professional opinion look up some of OOE's past posts on the subject).

Israel has been reassessing and adjusting its strategy, training and doctrine ever since. The Gaza campaign incorporated some of the lessons learned. In a new war Israel would go for Hezbollah's heart and deal a knockout blow (for a couple of years anyways). The cost may be substantial but Israel will win. Hezbollah does not want to fight Israel right now.

Originally Posted by Zinja

Oh Bigfella, this was not a rebuke on Obama. It just happened that i had just read an article of Obama having been rushed off home abruptly from his golf game with friends, then i saw the article from the London Telegraph with the question 'Iranians are dying for Freedom—Where is Barack Obama?'. And i thought it kinda funny that he was playing golf with friends.

On the contrary im a now a firm believer in countries liberating themselves. For far too long the US has been getting the stick at every turn for trying to help people. And sometimes more often than not, the same people who the US help then come back to bite the US. Its about time the US held back a bit until people learn to appreciate help the next time they get it. I bet you some of those people who are now battling the Iranian regime, two years ago have been chanting death to the US and Israel. I really sympathise with what they are doing now trying to secure their freedom, but i still hold firmly that unless people themselves pay the price for their freedom, they will never appreciate it.

Zinja,

Apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick. I'm not a great fan of cheap shots, even against politicians I don't much like. As it happens I am not especially impressed by Obama after one year, but I think he is handling this OK.

I largely agree with your second point. I am happy to see the US support freedom & democracy, but that support has to be carefully calculated to suit each situation. You are right about people having to be willing to secure their own freedom, though I have no objection to well targetted outside assistance (without which America would have struggled to win independence). In this case, however, 'hands off' is by far the best approach. I too hope that these brave Iranians, many of them kids, are successful.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

Zinja,

I'm not a great fan of cheap shots, even against politicians I don't much like. .

Ditto. I'm a Republican and somewhat conservative. I didn't vote for Obama and won't next time around. I'll skip the reasons. But he is my president and deserves my respect for his office. I learned that lesson long ago when I was in the Navy, and complained to an old chief that I had no respect for my commanding officer. The chief told me I didn't have to respect the man, but I absolutely have to respect the man's shoulder boards.

Originally Posted by Countezero

Perhaps, but as I said, I don't know. I read they had developed a missile capable of delivering the nuke. Meanwhile, if they're really as hopeless as you make out, then bombing them becomes an even more remote possibility, as apparently we have nothing to worry about for some time to come.

No, you did not say you don't know. You backtracked here ... and big time. And why should we allow Iran to violate the very treaty that she signed even though she cannot produce the delivery vehicles. For a guy who spouts he reads intel reports, your evals are not worth the bottom of my boot.

Originally Posted by Countezero

Yes, I will be forgiven (apparently). I'm well aware of that. Look, I'm not arguing the US would lose a conflict with Iran, I'm arguing the fallout from the conflict makes for a sober cost-benefit analysis. Iran could really bloody our nose. And, of course, could wreak havoc in the region, as I've said about half a dozen times now.

What fall out is worth allowing Iran to get a nuke while under the protection of the NPT?

You have NOT presented a case where a destroyed Iran can present itself to be more than an annoyance. Oh please, 140,000 foot soldiers that you don't even know who can only WALK into Iraq? What kind of danger could they have posed?

Incidently, in case you have not noticed, I am calling you a liar for reading daily intel reports.

Originally Posted by Countezero

I didn't tout anything.

Your posts say otherwise.

Originally Posted by Countezero

The point I am making is that Iran has seen relatively few consequences for nations that developed nukes secretly and against the desires of the West. Pakistan, in particular, lied to our faces. We did nothing. Now that country is ostensibly our ally.

What other countries can that be? Countries who did not signed the NPT while Iran did? Either Iran's signature means something or it does not. CHOOSE!

Originally Posted by Countezero

Agreed, but those powers are divided about what to do and no real consensus has emerged. Hence, my offering alternative solutions, like a summit. But I get it, believe me. The crowd around here wants to bomb and never look back...

Hey, idiot. The crowd here sees NO choice but to bomb. Iran is making nukes while under the protection of the NPT ... and therefore SUBJECT TO the punishment of the NPT.

Attaboy. A little vinegar makes the savor come out in a roast.)

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

. The crowd here sees NO choice but to bomb.

I don't know about the crowd, but you are absolutely correct that there is no choice but to bomb, and it's that decision, when it's made, that will cause Iran to call for a multilateral conference at which it will offer clear guarantees to not seek to produce nukes or process its own nuke fuel. The west will have to pay to allow Iran to save face--nauseating, but less costly in many ways than a bombing campaign.

It is, therefore, wise not to announce publicly the decision to bomb, but rather for the decision to find its way to Iran's headshed via intelligence, preferably Russian sourced, but any credible source will do. The decision must be serious, not a hollow threat. This is how one ends the haggling with a wily rug merchant.

IMO, Iran will be the most surprised county on earth if it succeeds in acquiring nukes. But in the meantime, it believes it's efforts to do so must be credible to get the largest settlement possible. Not until the bombs are being hung on the racks will they relent. And if the bombs do not come, then they'll bless their unexpected good fortune. So, yes, there is no choice but to bomb.


NB: This presupposes that the current government in Iran remains in power or, if not, that its successor continues the same policies.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

I don't know about the crowd, but you are absolutely correct that there is no choice but to bomb, and it's that decision, when it's made, that will cause Iran to call for a multilateral conference at which it will offer clear guarantees to not seek to produce nukes or process its own nuke fuel. The west will have to pay to allow Iran to save face--nauseating, but less costly in many ways than a bombing campaign.

It is, therefore, wise not to announce publicly the decision to bomb, but rather for the decision to find its way to Iran's headshed via intelligence, preferably Russian sourced, but any credible source will do. The decision must be serious, not a hollow threat. This is how one ends the haggling with a wily rug merchant.

IMO, Iran will be the most surprised county on earth if it succeeds in acquiring nukes. But in the meantime, it believes it's efforts to do so must be credible to get the largest settlement possible. Not until the bombs are being hung on the racks will they relent. And if the bombs do not come, then they'll bless their unexpected good fortune. So, yes, there is no choice but to bomb.


NB: This presupposes that the current government in Iran remains in power or, if not, that its successor continues the same policies.

I have been saying this for three years and the waiting has not been cost-free. It has been maddening to watch mistake follow lost opportunity follow futile policy. It isn't at all hard to trace back to the point at which this decision was unavoidable, and anybody with a clear eye saw this as inevitable.

And now it will cost more to do what should have been done years ago.

Originally Posted by Countezero

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



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.

Counter - friendly words from someone thats been smacked before. You need to learn the ropes from a few of the posters here that have quite a bit of insight into military type issues and defer to them. Zraver has a particularly good post that has been stickied in the introduction forum. You just need to appreciate the wealth of knowledge & specific knowledge some of the posters on this thread particularly have on the issue of nuclear weapons / military posturing & capability.

I was being unjust when I said a few, there's more than just that. WAB is a fairly big site so unfortunately it takes a lot of sifting, viewing and book marking just to come to respect that. Just some of the people here have been exposed to appreciable training, experience & real world scenarios or close to those in the thick of it that feel pressed to comment & do so reservedly.

My primary reason for posting this is because you have picked up the void between military & non-military types that is pretty common... Just double check yourself mate and try not to mis-interpret it - or let it guide your response or the tonality of your posts. Read everything 3 times before responding, because taking some words at face value only does not do justice to what those posters are trying to say- let alone their hard gained experience.

Cheers.

Best post in the thread.

Move, counter move....

Huge turnout at Iran pro-government rallies
Cleric tells crowd that opposition supporters ‘belong to the party of Satan’
msnbc.com news services
updated 7:00 a.m. PT, Wed., Dec . 30, 2009

TEHRAN, Iran - Tens of thousands of hard-line government supporters turned out for state-sponsored rallies Wednesday, some of them calling for the execution of opposition leaders as Iran's police chief threatened to show "no mercy" in crushing any new protests by the pro-reform movement.

Pro-government rallies were staged in Shiraz, Arak, Qom, Tehran among other cities. Demonstrators at a rally in Tehran chanted "Death to Mousavi," a reference to opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi. Some shouted "Rioter hypocrites must be executed" and held up a banner that read: "We sacrifice our blood for supreme leader."

The government gave all civil servants and employees a day off to attend the rallies and organized buses to transport groups of schoolchildren and supporters from outlying rural areas to the protests.

Hardline cleric Ahmad Alamolhoda called opponents of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei supporters of Satan.

"Enemies of the leader, according to the Quran, belong to the party of Satan," Alamolhoda told demonstrators in Tehran in comments broadcast on state TV. "Our war in the world is war against the opponents of the rule of the supreme leader."

'Era of tolerance is over'
Separately, police chief Gen. Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam warned protesters to stay off the streets or face harsh consequences. At least eight people were killed in street violence Sunday, the country's worst unrest since the aftermath of the disputed presidential election on June 12.

"In dealing with previous protests, police showed leniency. But given that these opponents are seeking to topple (the ruling system), there will be no mercy," Moghaddam said, according to the official news agency IRNA. "We will take severe action. The era of tolerance is over. Anyone attending such rallies will be crushed."

One of those killed Sunday was the nephew of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi. Iran's deputy police chief said Ali Mousavi was assassinated by unidentified assailants and not killed by security forces.

Ali Mousavi was buried Wednesday in a hastily organized ceremony. Authorities had taken his body from the hospital earlier in the week in what was seen as an attempt to prevent the funeral from turning into another pro-opposition protest.

The opposition says Ali Mousavi was shot and killed by security forces. But Iran's deputy police chief, Ahmad Reza Radan, was quoted by IRNA as saying that the way he was killed suggests he was assassinated while walking. The New York Times has quoted a family friend as saying he was run over by a vehicle outside his home in an assassination.

The opposition leader and other family members attended the funeral.

The police chief said more than 500 protesters who took part in Sunday's demonstrations have been arrested but the number may be higher since hardline Basij militiamen and intelligence agents may have apprehended more people on their own.

There are increasing fears Mousavi could also be arrested, following detention of a number of prominent activists and the sister of Nobel peace laureate Shirin Ebadi.

The government has also limited the movement of a leading opposition figure, Mahdi Karroubi, by refusing to protect him when he leaves his home.

Karroubi and Mousavi were the two defeated reformist candidates in the disputed June election, which set off the worst unrest in Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Authorities are also tightly restricting media coverage of street rallies, Internet access in the country is sporadic, as are cell phone and text messaging services.

Sunday's deadly protests coincided with Ashoura, the most solemn day of the year for Shiite Muslims. The observance commemorates the 7th-century death in battle of one of Shiite Islam's most beloved saints, and it conveys a message of sacrifice in the face of repression.

Hard-liners are especially furious that some of the protesters insulted Supreme Leader, casting aside a taboo on personal criticism of the leader. The government has said the protesters are a tiny minority, and accused the U.S. and Britain of organizing the opposition.

'Nauseating masquerade'
The hard-line criticism has become increasingly vocal, with some activists threatening to take the law into their own hands.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, locked in a row with the West over Iran's nuclear program, described the opposition rallies as a foreign-backed "nauseating masquerade."

The arrests, along with the tough criticism of the U.S. and Britain, added to rising tensions with the West, which is threatening to impose tough new sanctions over Iran's suspect nuclear program and has criticized the violent crackdown on anti-government protesters.

On Wednesday the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay urged the government to keep security forces from using excessive force. She said she was "shocked by the upsurge in deaths, injuries and arrests" and stressed the people have the right to peacefully protest without being beaten and thrown into jail.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

URL: Huge turnout at Iran pro-government rallies - Iran- msnbc.com

Wow, I guess that's definite proof Khamenei and his pals are really living in their own little world.