Iran's Crosses the Rubicon
- Thread starter rahulb
- Start date
From who? Who is threatening them? Everytime I hear threats coming from that part of the world it coming from Iran.caksz said:for countries who already have nuke , did the they realize their weapons is also concern to others countries
Will the U.N and others major power give iran a security insurance if they stop pursue nuke techology
Also, there is no way our NATO allies will authorize force used against Iran. At most they will allow air power to be used but they will not go along with an invasion. Look at what Saddam got away with for so long without troops on the ground. NATO is pretty much a paper tiger nowadays, it really exists in name only. While there is some decent cooperation in Afghanistan where else is NATO a factor? Lets face it, the future of NATO is pretty much splintered into pieces and mixed somewheres into the sands of Iraq.
I will add this. The Iranians realize, Im sure, that the most dependable way to avoid a US attack is to keep us tied up in Iraq. A stable peacefull Iraq is the last thing they want, nor the Syrians, and it takes no great genius to figure out who is supporting the extremest elements giving us problems there.
And without boots on the ground what are the chances of preventing Iran from getting these weapons? Air power would slow them down but the Iranians aren't stupid and they learned from Saddam's debacle. Now they are talking about "suspending enrichment" which was the same game played by North Korea during its nuke game with the World. Eventually they enrich enough to make a bomb, in between starts/stops, and then the world is forced to accept them as a nuclear power.
Look at the history of the game? Eventually even India and Pakistan out-waited US sanctions.
It doesent look like you need any help in f**king things up in Iraq, you seem to be quite capable of that your selfs.
Why would Iran want Al Queada set up next door, they hate shiites, and have been murdering them in droves.
Syrians have been fighting islamic exremists for longer than you guys have been funding them.
If anyones funding them its your Pals in Saudi, go bomb them.
merocaine said:
1, Stability in Iraq would give the world the leisure to concentrate on Iran and its nukes.
2, Instability in Iraq give Iran a trump card in its dealings with the West, along with the threat of further destabilizing Iraq.
3, Al Qaeda next door is preferable to them then a American military juggernaut next door.....and with nothing to do.
4, I know all about Syria and extremists. For the rest of you who dont type "Hama" and "Syrian atrocity" into a search engine. That's how that end of the world deals with extremism.
Have a nice day
:First off there's no doubt that we screwed up in Iraq. That however can be blamed on the white house. As for Iran, the major issue is that they are not only driven by political and strategic means, but also by religion. Most worrysome is the fact that they are not afraid to die. Most strategic rivals can be dealt with because of the fact that they think logically. The Soviet Union would not launch their missiles because thay knew we would launch ours and everyone would be destroyed and no one would benefit. The fact that the MAD does not worry the Iranians is a major problem. If they get nuclear waepons they will certainly use them. Another issue is how popular the regime in Iran is. This is not like Iraq in that Saddam was not especially popular but people were too afraid to speak out against him and they were not out in the streets chanting "death to America", "death to Israel", and burning flags. This type of war would be something we have not seen since WW 2 whereby we were fighting an entire nation rather then just a regime. Let me say I'm no warmonger and I'm against the war in Iraq but I wouldn't blink an eye if Tehran looked like Tokyo in 1945.
contedicavour
New Member
It's always the same sad story.
The only thing that matters is the "rapport de force", or to put it bluntly who has the strongest military and the politicians willing to use them... knowing that a combination of both is needed.
Europe has strong military capability but 99% of politicians (Blair is the 1% exception) prefer to forget that the military exists for anything other than humanitarian relief and peacekeeping operations.
With Blair soon to leave power, no European country will ever dare do anything serious to Iran until the day we find a substitute for oil...
In Teheran they perfectly know this and they love to make fun at our diplomats' noses...
On the other hand, if the US decides to act on Iran, everybody will of course condemn the US as aggressors or at least as bullies having underestimated the "diplomatic solution" .
To summarize, the only thing we can do is get our bloody cars to run on something else than oil, and build more nuclear power plants. So one day we'll be able to send thisfinger ) to Iran without wrecking our ecohomies !
The only thing that matters is the "rapport de force", or to put it bluntly who has the strongest military and the politicians willing to use them... knowing that a combination of both is needed.
Europe has strong military capability but 99% of politicians (Blair is the 1% exception) prefer to forget that the military exists for anything other than humanitarian relief and peacekeeping operations.
With Blair soon to leave power, no European country will ever dare do anything serious to Iran until the day we find a substitute for oil...
In Teheran they perfectly know this and they love to make fun at our diplomats' noses...
On the other hand, if the US decides to act on Iran, everybody will of course condemn the US as aggressors or at least as bullies having underestimated the "diplomatic solution" .
To summarize, the only thing we can do is get our bloody cars to run on something else than oil, and build more nuclear power plants. So one day we'll be able to send this
finger ) to Iran without wrecking our ecohomies !Time will tell if we screwed up in Iraq. I'd say, at beast, there is a 50/50% chance of Democracy taking root in that troubled region. Thats down from about 60/40% I gave it at the beginning. Its important to note that the military didn't screw up in Iraq. They performed their mission brilliantly and If anyone screwed up it was the Politicians who underestimated the opposition during occupation. But as far as removing a regime by force of arms we haven't lost a step. Most of all in such favorable terrain.
I dont buy this, "they aren't afraid to die" thing and I have some experience in the region. Ever wonder why so many of the enemies leadership always give up? They most certainly are afraid to die, and the common troops on the ground? When facing such superior firepower and tactics they often dont have a choice in the matter. I think anyone looking at a F-18 barreling at them is going to be very afraid.
On the pure strategic end of things having so many enemy troops in Iraq must be a real pickle for the Iranians. "That" was part of the deal too, the same policy of encirclement/containment that we used against the communists. Just look at the disposition of American and friendly forces in the region, thru either occupation, agreement, or alliance, and you begin to see the master plan against Iran and Syria. I will add the security of the regions oil too, because as its already been pointed out we absolutely need the oil.
Saddam made fun of us too. And I'm sure in private the Iranians aren't laughing quite as hard. The entire plan hasn't gone quite as planned. But what plan does? Either way it would be a mistake to pull out of Iraq now.
I dont buy this, "they aren't afraid to die" thing and I have some experience in the region. Ever wonder why so many of the enemies leadership always give up? They most certainly are afraid to die, and the common troops on the ground? When facing such superior firepower and tactics they often dont have a choice in the matter. I think anyone looking at a F-18 barreling at them is going to be very afraid.
On the pure strategic end of things having so many enemy troops in Iraq must be a real pickle for the Iranians. "That" was part of the deal too, the same policy of encirclement/containment that we used against the communists. Just look at the disposition of American and friendly forces in the region, thru either occupation, agreement, or alliance, and you begin to see the master plan against Iran and Syria. I will add the security of the regions oil too, because as its already been pointed out we absolutely need the oil.
Saddam made fun of us too. And I'm sure in private the Iranians aren't laughing quite as hard. The entire plan hasn't gone quite as planned. But what plan does? Either way it would be a mistake to pull out of Iraq now.
contedicavour
New Member
Well it would depend on what sort of mission you would have in mind. Enforcing sanctions along the Iranian border (Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, occupied Iraq, occupied Afghanistan, potentially Turkey and Azerbaijan if they agree to cooperate... this leaves out the Turkmeni and Pakistani borders though) would already require several tens of thousands of extra troops.fylr71 said:
Attacking the infrastructure where the nuclear programme is underway would require a lot more troops (at least a couple of airborne divisions).
This sounds politically impossible to me as the mid-term elections arrive and the presidential ones are only a couple of years away...
cheers
No! We dont. I think to plan any kind of OP against Iran alone would be stupid. First off why should our kids have to fight against what is a regional/Euro security matter. Given the track record of Iran and its involvement in International trade of missile and WMD technology its really a world-wide security matter.fylr71 said:
Still, no matter what the American readiness state we are in, they are smart enough to realize the disposition of American forces in the region has left them in a disadvantageous position. To the east is Afghanistan, "with its Yank presence", and Pakistan "an American Ally", or if push came to shove would probably side with us. To the north are former Soviet states eager to improve relations with the West "as their own guarantee against a new Russian empire" and which we have already forged alliances. To the West of Iran is Iraq and Turkey, "again either occupied or allied". To the south are the Gulf states who are scared willy,nilly of Iran and allied with America. One end of the Gulf is in our hands and on the other end sits in blue water the USN.
Covering all this is a network of bases we could possibly use in an OP against Iran. Meanwhile both Syria and Iran have been isolated, much of the regions water is in friendly hands, the flow of oil is assured, and hopefully the seed of Democracy will be planted in that troubled region and there will eventually be peace. I would say the flow of oil is far more important then anything else. "Oil" is one of the few good reasons to go to war I can think of. And its just as important for you Europeans because without it we all crumble.
THIS! was the master plan of it all. It is war and Political brinkmanship on a truly strategic scale. How sad that so many are so shallow or so tied up in their anti-Bush'ism, or anti-American'ism, that they are blind to the big picture. Add to all this our anti-Terror efforts, going after their money, hunting them down....ect
Strange isnt it that even some of the military minded are incapable of looking at the war in more then one dimension. And that one dimension controlled by their emotions and/or personal Political leanings.
I couldn't imagine a world as worse off as one with the likes of Saddam, Kim, or the ruling Mullahs in Iran, having arsenals bristling with nuclear weapons. Because with each new member to "The Club", most of all if a Dictatorship, the odds such weapons will be used/sold, either accidentally or on purpose, rises exponentially. THIS is not the kind of world we want to give our kids.
contedicavour
New Member
The only plausible scenario in which a full scale invasion of Iran would be feasible would be if Iran did something really stupid such as testing weapons, threatening neighbor states or get caught exporting or importing WMDs.
If any of these events materialized, a wide enough alliance of countries could be set up.
By looking at a map, without Turkish support and Russian acquiescence, Iran cannot be properly "surrounded".
cheers
If any of these events materialized, a wide enough alliance of countries could be set up.
By looking at a map, without Turkish support and Russian acquiescence, Iran cannot be properly "surrounded".
cheers
Sure it can. And I'm not talking "surrounded" in the litteral sense. The Iranians have to buy, build, arm, and deploy their forces according to various contingancies and/or possible future conflict scenerios. I'd say they have a lot more to worry about now in 2006 then they did in 2000. Of particular concern for them is the new air base construction in Qatar, UAE, Iraq and Afghanistan as well as a new operations center in Oman.
I dont think Central command is going home anytime soon and you can bet the Iranians know it.
contedicavour
New Member
I understand. But what about the risk of weapons entering Iran through the former USSR borders (or via the Caspian Sea) ? If Russia were against the surrounding of Iran, it could seriously derail containment efforts...Rich said:
Also, the viability of bases in the UAE, Oman or Turkey in the face of serious public opinion hostility in the countries harbouring them, would be dubous at best. That would leave a US-led coalition with aircraft carriers as only reliable bases.
cheers
There was a time when many swore the Saudis would never host foreign troops on their precious soil. Many things can change as events unfold and I'd say the current strategy of containment/encirclement is more a hedge against possible contingancies then an active strategy preparing for war. "Containment" is a proven strategy, it was proven in the cold war and is both a military and diplomatic initiative that is preferred because it holds the possibility of success without firing a shot.contedicavour said:
I dont think thats going to happen. I do believe we are going to get into a shooting war with Iran, in fact consider that preferable then allowing them to become a nuclear power. Either way "containment" or we can call it "the squeeze play" allows for the gradual increase in military and Political pressure on an adversary. Each new deployment in the region, either of bases, troops, or systems, creates a defense vaccum the Iranians are going to have to scramble to fill. I guess you can call it the policy of keeping them off-balance.
You also have to wonder how deep the Russians are willing to go. They dont need oil from Iran and the only real economic tie they have is with the sale of military systems. The Russians I'm sure dont want the tail wagging the tail and even if they did they have enough troubles with their own Islamic populations. While the Chechnyan rebels have been ignored by the Govt. of Iran, out of national considerations, its no secret the Iranian population has sympathy for the rebels.
I think the Russians are starting to have second thoughts about a nuclear armed Iran. Either way they could easily resupply Iran via the Caspin sea route, even so such resupply would be irrelevant in time of war because it would all be over fairly quickly. And why would they anyway? How much would they be willing to sour ties with the west over Iran?
Iran has far more non-military economic ties with the E/U then with the Russians.
Hmmm I would'ent hold out much hope of the Russians doing the US any favours over Iran, Any Russian friendliness at the moment is a product of there relative weakness Vis a V the west. They are rapidly rebuilding there influence in central asia, having a friendly secure Iran is very benifical to the Russians. Have'ent they been trying to force the americans out of the region since they arrived? My guess is they fear the US a lot more than they fear a Neuclear Iran, otherwise they would be supporting American and European effoerts to prevent Iran aquiring neuclear tecq.
contedicavour
New Member
I agree that Russia is doing the utmost to rebuild its network of influence and restore its superpower status. Russia probably mistrusts Iran's intentions but aren't willing to support US-EU containment unless they receive some major concession (WTO entry, commitment not to push Ukraine into NATO, authorization to get into the board of EADS, etc).merocaine said:
cheers