Iranian response to a limited airstrike against nuclear facilities and infrastructure

[Supermoves]

Its really hard to know what I would do if I were the head of Iran, because we dont really know what Iran's capabilities are. We don't know for sure if they have nukes, we dont know for sure if their ICBMs are working and we dont know for sure how many they have.

This is for sure, if we struck them, we could wipe out 80% of their weapons capabilities before they could react. We would then have to take out the few remaining long range missiles they have (if in fact they do exist) with our missiles from ships in the sea.

I am not sure there is much that Iran could do in retaliation if we were really serious about taking out their nuke sites. If they really do have nukes and they set a few off just to spite us, god help the environment, and god help the countries that directly border iran!

 

[STURM]

Its really hard to know what I would do if I were the head of Iran, because we dont really know what Iran's capabilities are. We don't know for sure if they have nukes, we dont know for sure if their ICBMs are working and we dont know for sure how many they have. !

''We'' actually have a pretty good idea what Iran has. 'We' know for sure that they don' t have ICBMs [no one in the region has] and that they don't have a nuclear device yet. All this fuss is not about Iran already having nuclear device/weapons but about stoppping them from developing the capability to produce nukes.

I am not sure there is much that Iran could do in retaliation if we were really serious about taking out their nuke sites.

If you read the past few pages, you'll see that there is actually a lot Iran can do to retaliate. Why do you think there has been so much debate withing the U.S. about the strikes, it is certainly not due to humanitarian reasons.

If they really do have nukes and they set a few off just to spite us, god help the environment, and god help the countries that directly border iran!

And god help the countries in the region if a war erupts. Look at the after effects of the invasion of Iraq, thousands of Iraqis died in sectarian violence and thousands were displaced.

 

[2007yellow430]

''We'' actually have a pretty good idea what Iran has. 'We' know for sure that they don' t have ICBMs [no one in the region has] and that they don't have a nuclear device yet. All this fuss is not about Iran already having nuclear device/weapons but about stoppping them from developing the capability to produce nukes.


And god help the countries in the region if a war erupts. Look at the after effects of the invasion of Iraq, thousands of Iraqis died in sectarian violence and thousands were displaced.

Actually if your comments are accurate it means the USA is intentionally violating the NPT, which guarantees them the unalienable right to develop peaceful nuclear energy, which is what you've basically described. Anybody thought about the spillover from that?

Art

 

[Supermoves]

''We'' actually have a pretty good idea what Iran has. 'We' know for sure that they don' t have ICBMs [no one in the region has] and that they don't have a nuclear device yet. All this fuss is not about Iran already having nuclear device/weapons but about stoppping them from developing the capability to produce nukes.

With due respect, we know about the same as we knew iraq had WMDs. We know they can't BUILD one from uranium they make themselves, however it is very plausible that they have obtained substances from another source.


If you read the past few pages, you'll see that there is actually a lot Iran can do to retaliate. Why do you think there has been so much debate withing the U.S. about the strikes, it is certainly not due to humanitarian reasons.

Let me clarify, there isn't a lot they could to The U.S. sure blowing up other countries is bad for the world, which is why we are debating so much. But the chances of an Iranian missile hitting US soil after we make a first strike is very low, IMO.


And god help the countries in the region if a war erupts. Look at the after effects of the invasion of Iraq, thousands of Iraqis died in sectarian violence and thousands were displaced.

My sentiments exactly!

 

[STURM]

The whole point of what's happening is that the U.S. claims that the Iranian official position - that is is pursuing nuclear technology solely for civilian purposes - is actually a cover for a nuclear weapons programme.

If anything I would say that the U.S. is very selective as to who is allowed to get nukes and who isn't. The U.S. obviously has better means of applying pressure on some countries than it has over others and in preventing them from getting nukes. Looking at it from an objective viewpoint, if the aim is really to prevent a 'rogue' regime from getting nukes, due to fears that it could lead to proliferation or enable the regime to threaten the free world, surely then all this pressure that is being applied against Iran, would be better applied against North Korea. Surely North Korea has a more of a history of being threatening and irrational in pursuit of its political goals than Iran and it also actually has a nuclear device. And which country in the Middle East is known to have nukes but never even signed the NPT and refuses even to discuss it? For that matter, even the U.S. has a traditional policy of not discussing that country's nuke capability.

 

[Twain]

The whole point of what's happening is that the U.S. claims that the Iranian official position - that is is pursuing nuclear technology solely for civilian purposes - is actually a cover for a nuclear weapons programme.

If anything I would say that the U.S. is very selective as to who is allowed to get nukes and who isn't. The U.S. obviously has better means of applying pressure on some countries than it has over others and in preventing them from getting nukes. Looking at it from an objective viewpoint, if the aim is really to prevent a 'rogue' regime from getting nukes, due to fears that it could lead to proliferation or enable the regime to threaten the free world, surely then all this pressure that is being applied against Iran, would be better applied against North Korea. Surely North Korea has a more of a history of being threatening and irrational in pursuit of its political goals than Iran and it also actually has a nuclear device. And which country in the Middle East is known to have nukes but never even signed the NPT and refuses even to discuss it? For that matter, even the U.S. has a traditional policy of not discussing that country's nuke capability.

I'd tend to agree with your observations on the US policy toward that middle eastern country being a double standard but North Korea is a very different situation than the Iranian one. The US has very little additional diplomatic pressure that can be applied to North Korea than has already been applied and no one wants to deal with the consequences of an attack on NK and the possible aftermath of NK becoming a failed state.

If you look at NK there are basically two options, additional sanctions or an attack. What additional sanctions could be placed on them? They have virtually no economy to hurt and world opinion means little to them so that leaves some sort of attack. A successful attack might very well result in the NK government totally collapsing and an unsuccessful one would only increase their drive for more nuclear weapons.

There are just not many options when it comes to North Korea. China does not want thousands of North Koreans streaming across it's border nor do they want a unified Korea having a direct border with them. South Korea hardly gives more than lip service to unification anymore. They clearly saw the costs associated with the German unification and fully realize that bringing North Korea up to even 20th century standards would cost much more.



But in the end, what country doesn't have double standards when it comes to what they see as being in their interests?

 

[Beatmaster]

I'd tend to agree with your observations on the US policy toward that middle eastern country being a double standard but North Korea is a very different situation than the Iranian one. The US has very little additional diplomatic pressure that can be applied to North Korea than has already been applied and no one wants to deal with the consequences of an attack on NK and the possible aftermath of NK becoming a failed state.

With all do respect, but on a global level i rather see North Korea as a failed state (Which it already is in many regards) then seeing Iran becoming a failed state.
I mean if you have to pick the lesser of 2 evils...
That being said, the US cannot do much more to North Korea other then it already does, but fact is that the real reason behind it is the danger that coming from NK's arsenal (How small and bad it might be) but non the less thats the only real reason the US is sort of keeping a eye closed.
Because other then a a lot out war, with possible nuclear effects there is nothing much the US can do. They might be able to pressure the Chinese a bit more but they only allow so much pressure.
So one might say that the influence of the US in that region is gone.
Sure they are allies with South K, Japan and Taiwan (and a few others so called the golden ring) but fact is that things turn into favor of the Asian people who look more at china for many things then they use to do towards the US.
Roughly spoken the role of the US has somewhat come to a halt there.

And with Iran the clock is ticking and is ticking fast, because if the US are not able to secure their interests in the middle east then the door to the middle east is in many way shut.
Israels power will decline sharply as the influence of Iran will eventually get even Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria to come around in favor of Iran.
Because lets say that Iran where to have nukes then this would change the balance in the middle east drastically and this will not be in favor of the US.

I do not want to criticize facts that i do not know much about, but what i do know is that the US has been messing up in the middle east for the past 20 years...
Which resulted in 4 wars and 2 proxy wars.
And regardless if the motives for those wars where good or bad, the result is that those nations got abandoned and in anarchy....
You have to understand that the middle east is being friendly to the US for many reasons and one of those reasons is the many benefits from it.
However with a alienating Pakistan, a lost Iraq and a destroyed Afghanistan and a possible war with Iran will sure change things around.
Simply put military speaking the US will always be boss (At least for some time to come) but this is a different ballgame here....this is not about who has the bigger army or who has the bigger gun...its all about influence and dominance.
Honestly i understand all the hectic around it and the fears of a nuclear Iran (specially after the crazy things they have said) but this is not about Israel anymore this is a prestige matter.....and you can say what you want but Iran has a load more prestige then the US in these parts of the world.
Because those same leaders who cry to the US for help against evil Iran, they are getting closer to Iran .....
Imo the US is being played....in many ways.

Fact is if Iran pulls trough without making the bomb, and the US chooses to invade Iran because of a alleged bomb program..then everything the US has worked for in the past 25 years is gone.
Because what people seem to forget is that most middle east nations consider Iran as a evil nations because of the fact they are building a bomb...

Now i wonder what would happen if it turns out they do not have a program.....
I wonder how Israel and the US are going to digg them selfs out of this one..
Ill bet that Russia and China are going to love this....not to mention Pakistan who will fall into anarchy due the many rebels from Iran and such...
Some analysts have said that the US drift for dominance in the middle east will be their fall....
Do not forget, Iran is not a failed state...they have solid leadership and even with their bad reputation they still are a key player in the region, they always have been.....so far the US fought NON-Key players....question however is can the US afford to allow Iran to continue the way they do...or can they afford to go in and turning the last bit of stability in the region to a wa rzone..
Simple said the region might hate Iran but they need Iran...they can do without Saddam, they can do without Taliban....but they cannot do without a key player like Iran.
So if the US wants to have any influence beyond the influence they have right now then it would be wise to consider their options.....
One could say that the US is betting on the wrong horse here....
Israel might be a nuclear regional power, but they never will have the potential that Iran has.
Give Iran 5 or 10 more years and they would be the most powerful nation next to Turkey, Pakistan and India....
Sure Israel remains a strong player and Saudi Arabia will be playing their part....but non of both have the potential that Iran has.

So perhaps the US should turn their attention to Israel.....i would argue that the nations would rather see Israel gone then Iran...
Ill bet it would bring a lot more peace and stability to the region...then any action towards evil Iran.


Well i might not be the most knowledgeable here on the forum...but you got to admit that i got a point here.

Cheers

 

[Quiller]

With all do respect, but on a global level i rather see North Korea as a failed state (Which it already is in many regards) then seeing Iran becoming a failed state.
I mean if you have to pick the lesser of 2 evils...
That being said, the US cannot do much more to North Korea other then it already does, but fact is that the real reason behind it is the danger that coming from NK's arsenal (How small and bad it might be) but non the less thats the only real reason the US is sort of keeping a eye closed.
Because other then a a lot out war, with possible nuclear effects there is nothing much the US can do. They might be able to pressure the Chinese a bit more but they only allow so much pressure.
So one might say that the influence of the US in that region is gone.
Sure they are allies with South K, Japan and Taiwan (and a few others so called the golden ring) but fact is that things turn into favor of the Asian people who look more at china for many things then they use to do towards the US.
Roughly spoken the role of the US has somewhat come to a halt there.

And with Iran the clock is ticking and is ticking fast, because if the US are not able to secure their interests in the middle east then the door to the middle east is in many way shut.
Israels power will decline sharply as the influence of Iran will eventually get even Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria to come around in favor of Iran.
Because lets say that Iran where to have nukes then this would change the balance in the middle east drastically and this will not be in favor of the US.

I do not want to criticize facts that i do not know much about, but what i do know is that the US has been messing up in the middle east for the past 20 years...
Which resulted in 4 wars and 2 proxy wars.
And regardless if the motives for those wars where good or bad, the result is that those nations got abandoned and in anarchy....
You have to understand that the middle east is being friendly to the US for many reasons and one of those reasons is the many benefits from it.
However with a alienating Pakistan, a lost Iraq and a destroyed Afghanistan and a possible war with Iran will sure change things around.
Simply put military speaking the US will always be boss (At least for some time to come) but this is a different ballgame here....this is not about who has the bigger army or who has the bigger gun...its all about influence and dominance.
Honestly i understand all the hectic around it and the fears of a nuclear Iran (specially after the crazy things they have said) but this is not about Israel anymore this is a prestige matter.....and you can say what you want but Iran has a load more prestige then the US in these parts of the world.
Because those same leaders who cry to the US for help against evil Iran, they are getting closer to Iran .....
Imo the US is being played....in many ways.

Fact is if Iran pulls trough without making the bomb, and the US chooses to invade Iran because of a alleged bomb program..then everything the US has worked for in the past 25 years is gone.
Because what people seem to forget is that most middle east nations consider Iran as a evil nations because of the fact they are building a bomb...

Now i wonder what would happen if it turns out they do not have a program.....
I wonder how Israel and the US are going to digg them selfs out of this one..
Ill bet that Russia and China are going to love this....not to mention Pakistan who will fall into anarchy due the many rebels from Iran and such...
Some analysts have said that the US drift for dominance in the middle east will be their fall....
Do not forget, Iran is not a failed state...they have solid leadership and even with their bad reputation they still are a key player in the region, they always have been.....so far the US fought NON-Key players....question however is can the US afford to allow Iran to continue the way they do...or can they afford to go in and turning the last bit of stability in the region to a wa rzone..
Simple said the region might hate Iran but they need Iran...they can do without Saddam, they can do without Taliban....but they cannot do without a key player like Iran.
So if the US wants to have any influence beyond the influence they have right now then it would be wise to consider their options.....
One could say that the US is betting on the wrong horse here....
Israel might be a nuclear regional power, but they never will have the potential that Iran has.
Give Iran 5 or 10 more years and they would be the most powerful nation next to Turkey, Pakistan and India....
Sure Israel remains a strong player and Saudi Arabia will be playing their part....but non of both have the potential that Iran has.

So perhaps the US should turn their attention to Israel.....i would argue that the nations would rather see Israel gone then Iran...
Ill bet it would bring a lot more peace and stability to the region...then any action towards evil Iran.


Well i might not be the most knowledgeable here on the forum...but you got to admit that i got a point here.

Cheers

The biggest problem with your overall analysis is.... Israel is and remains, for all intents and purposes, a democracy... or at least some sort of democratic republic. The US affinity for Israel is deep-seated for many reasons, including their success as a nation state that had freedoms. And many Jews in America have that affinity of course. So the notion that Iran may be the better horse to bet on is not part of the American psyche. Ah yes... everyone hates to hear that. American may be many things. It may have been, and still be Imperialist. It may not be fair, and use double-standards to evaluate good and evil. Yes yes yes.

But the American populace does have a "pysche" that others do not really understand and cannot integrate, somehow, into political policy issues or military issues. Oh yes, America can be notoriously expedient.... bizzarely selfrighteous, etc. It should be called the "Yank" factor for any nation that wants to provoke the US. America has a kind of "the Yanks are Coming" streetfighter mentality that other countries don't quite understand. But it underlines the American self that is extremely strong in foreign policy and military adventure. In this regard, somehow, the American psyche will not abandon Israel in favor of Iran. It will not happen this century, surely.

Has the US ignored Israel's development of nukes? Heck yeah. They have them.
But this is about TRIBES. Yes, tribes. The Middle East should be well acquainted with the tribal concept.... they INVENTED tribes before the world started counting BC versus AD. The Middle East is ALL ABOUT tribal warfare. Sunni's versus Shiites, Arabs versus Persians, etc.

It is this tribal thing, plus that Yank factor which has real strategic calculus, that will compel the US to back Israel. Remember the deliberate attack on the US Navy intelligence ship Liberty by Israeli gunboats and jets years ago. America bitched but took it. The American government silenced even the relatives of the dead Navy sailors. The tribal connections were too strong.

Israel and America have tribal connections that will endure through this conflict and the next. This is not a polemic diatribe... it is a strategic factor that must be taken into account. Perceptions directly influence military decisions in this part of the world... and every part of the world for that matter. Don't discount or diminish this issue.

 

[Quiller]

Also most nations in the region DO NOT CONSIDER IRAN EVIL BECAUSE THEY MIGHT BE BUILDINGTHE BOMB.

Arab states have hated Persians for centuries... when they were fighting each other with Scimitars. Most Arab nations consider Iran evil because they want to control all the other nations in the region with their version of Islam. This is extremely complicated and involves hatreds and percieved wrongs that go back for all those centuries.

So don't imagine that the accusation Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons is the big deal with Saudi Arabia or Oman or Turkey. It isn't. Those people despise the Persian nation at a visceral level. Saudi Arabia is islamic. Turkey is islamic. The UAE is islamic. Yet they allow the Great Satan, and benefactor of the hated Zionist Israel, to put our military on their soil. Because they fear an Iranian bomb? No. Because they HATE Iran with enough passion to choose American interference over Iranian interference.

 

[Twain]

With all do respect, but on a global level i rather see North Korea as a failed state (Which it already is in many regards) then seeing Iran becoming a failed state.
I mean if you have to pick the lesser of 2 evils...

North Korea is not a failed state. Somalia is a failed state. It wouldn't take much for north korea to become a failed state. They rely almost entirely on their armed forces and security apparatus to hold things together. That is a much different scenario than Iran. In the face of an attack on nuclear facilities and military targets of either Iran or NK, it would be much much more likely for NK to fail than Iran.

That being said, the US cannot do much more to North Korea other then it already does, but fact is that the real reason behind it is the danger that coming from NK's arsenal (How small and bad it might be) but non the less thats the only real reason the US is sort of keeping a eye closed.

Not at all. While it may be true that NK having nuclear weapons now is a deterrent, that fails to address the time period before NK had nuclear weapons. NK withdrew from the agreed upon framework in 2001, they didn't explode their first nuclear weapon until 2006. During that time there was a window to either attack or resume diplomatic talks, however that didn't happen, The bush administration had a policy of "not negotiating with evil" so they in effect ignored NK during this period. South Korea has almost no political leverage with NK and they definitely do not want a war with NK. Among the nasty things NK has are numerous dug in artillery sites along the DMZ that are in range of Seoul. A south korean war with north korea would be devastating for South korea even if they won easily, not just from damage but the costs of re-unification.

Japan's policy of non-intervention and no offensive military actions ruled them out as a potential attacker too. China has only limited diplomatic influence over NK and has absolutely no desire to either attack NK or institute regime change in NK. The situation is this, no country wants to be responsible for the mess that is NK.

The short version is this, none of the countries most affected by NK possessing a nuclear bomb have the political will to deal with it by either diplomatic or military means. Even now, South korea essentially considers NK having nuclear weapons to be less of a threat than it does a potential unification. (that is greatly simplifying things, but that is the result)

Now having said all that, if you are truly concerned with preventing nuclear proliferation, this sent exactly the wrong message. What it said to countries trying to develop nuclear weapons is that once you have nuclear weapons, you are inviolate. (Under different circumstances, this also applies to India and Pakistan.)

So one might say that the influence of the US in that region is gone.
Sure they are allies with South K, Japan and Taiwan (and a few others so called the golden ring) but fact is that things turn into favor of the Asian people who look more at china for many things then they use to do towards the US.
Roughly spoken the role of the US has somewhat come to a halt there.

Depends on what you mean here. If you mean do they turn to China for trade, then yes. If you mean for diplomatic and military support, then it requires a much more detailed answer.

China's actions, both recently and over the last few years has changed a lot of perceptions in the pacific rim. Their rapid naval build-up has a lot of countries very nervous. Their claims in the South china Sea and their actions at Scarborough Shoal have had a definite impact on foreign relations in this region. We're now seeing several countries becoming much more friendly with India and the west because of this. Some analysts even argue that the changes in Myanmar are a direct result of fear of China turning Myanmar into a client state. Most of the countries in this area are hedging their bets by maintaining good relations with china (indonesia and myanmar in particular) but they are definitely looking to the US and western nations as a counter to China.

And with Iran the clock is ticking and is ticking fast, because if the US are not able to secure their interests in the middle east then the door to the middle east is in many way shut.
Israels power will decline sharply as the influence of Iran will eventually get even Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria to come around in favor of Iran.
Because lets say that Iran where to have nukes then this would change the balance in the middle east drastically and this will not be in favor of the US.

Now getting back on topic. The situation with Iran is very different than NK. As I said earlier, there was no political will to deal with NK when they were in the lead up phases to detonating their first nuclear weapon. The situation around Iran is very different. It's not just Israel that is pushing for an attack on Iran, Saudi Arabia is one of the leading nations pushing for an attack on Iran. (IIRC Qatar and the UAE are of a similar opinion) According to some reports the Saudis not only want the nuclear program destroyed, they want regime change in Iran. "Cut the head off the snake" were the words that were used I believe.

Then going through your list of countries, Pakistan won't get involved but they will in general follow the Saudi lead. They can't afford to alienate Saudi Arabia. Syria is already an ally of Iran but if Assad falls they will more than likely become quite hostile to Iran. Afghanistan is not likely to be a factor either way for at least a decade. They have too much to deal with internally.

I do not want to criticize facts that i do not know much about, but what i do know is that the US has been messing up in the middle east for the past 20 years...
Which resulted in 4 wars and 2 proxy wars.
And regardless if the motives for those wars where good or bad, the result is that those nations got abandoned and in anarchy....
You have to understand that the middle east is being friendly to the US for many reasons and one of those reasons is the many benefits from it.
However with a alienating Pakistan, a lost Iraq and a destroyed Afghanistan and a possible war with Iran will sure change things around.
Simply put military speaking the US will always be boss (At least for some time to come) but this is a different ballgame here....this is not about who has the bigger army or who has the bigger gun...its all about influence and dominance.
Honestly i understand all the hectic around it and the fears of a nuclear Iran (specially after the crazy things they have said) but this is not about Israel anymore this is a prestige matter.....and you can say what you want but Iran has a load more prestige then the US in these parts of the world.
Because those same leaders who cry to the US for help against evil Iran, they are getting closer to Iran .....
Imo the US is being played....in many ways.

The US has handled their middle eastern policy poorly and it goes back further than 20 years, particularly with Iran. I'd push it back to the Mossadegh coup [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh"]Mohammad Mosaddegh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Fact is if Iran pulls trough without making the bomb, and the US chooses to invade Iran because of a alleged bomb program..then everything the US has worked for in the past 25 years is gone.
Because what people seem to forget is that most middle east nations consider Iran as a evil nations because of the fact they are building a bomb...

Now i wonder what would happen if it turns out they do not have a program.....
I wonder how Israel and the US are going to digg them selfs out of this one..
Ill bet that Russia and China are going to love this....not to mention Pakistan who will fall into anarchy due the many rebels from Iran and such...
Some analysts have said that the US drift for dominance in the middle east will be their fall....
Do not forget, Iran is not a failed state...they have solid leadership and even with their bad reputation they still are a key player in the region, they always have been.....so far the US fought NON-Key players....question however is can the US afford to allow Iran to continue the way they do...or can they afford to go in and turning the last bit of stability in the region to a wa rzone..

This is at least part of the reason that the EU and the US are not getting involved in Syria, not all of it but at least part of it.

Simple said the region might hate Iran but they need Iran...they can do without Saddam, they can do without Taliban....but they cannot do without a key player like Iran.
So if the US wants to have any influence beyond the influence they have right now then it would be wise to consider their options.....
One could say that the US is betting on the wrong horse here....
Israel might be a nuclear regional power, but they never will have the potential that Iran has.
Give Iran 5 or 10 more years and they would be the most powerful nation next to Turkey, Pakistan and India....
Sure Israel remains a strong player and Saudi Arabia will be playing their part....but non of both have the potential that Iran has.

Iran has huge potential but so far that is all. I'm a bit skeptical of Iran ever even coming close to India. Extraction based economies don't have a good record when it comes to developing their economy into a broad based one. Iran has potential, but without big changes to government policy, that is probably all it will ever be, potential.

So perhaps the US should turn their attention to Israel.....i would argue that the nations would rather see Israel gone then Iran...
Ill bet it would bring a lot more peace and stability to the region...then any action towards evil Iran.


Cheers

I'm sure most people in the middle east would much rather see an attack on Israel than one on Iran. Their governments are a different story though.

As to the US-Israeli relationship, that's very complicated (to put it mildly) though I do see a gradual evolution there. If you read US based defense and foreign policy analysts, gradually more of them are beginning to question the value of this relationship. Nothing will change in the near future, but just a few years ago questioning this relationship would have resulted in claims of antisemitism or at least as being called an idiot.



One thing I do find interesting in all this is that this is being presented as US VS Iran. The US is certainly out in front on all this, but they are by no means alone. The EU is heavily backing a strong response to Iran. The Sunni nations in the middle east are privately doing the same. Even russia and china are only providing limited support. Iran doesn't have many friends out there so I am not sure an attack on Iran would have some of the repercussions that people fear.

 

[STURM]

Most Arab nations consider Iran evil because they want to control all the other nations in the region with their version of Islam.

You are highly mistaken. The Iranians DO NOT ''want to control all the other nations in the region with their version of Islam'' as they know that this is impossible to achieve. The Iranians perceive U.S. policy towards Iran, including attempts to contain Iran and prevent it from becoming a regional power [which it already is by the level of influence it has in certain countries] as contrary to Iranians interests and driven by the need to safeguard American interests - which include ensuring the security of Israel and the Arab states. What the Iranians want to do now, is to maintain their interests in the face of a Sunni Arab bloc that is in an alliance with Uncle Sam. And to maintain their influence in places of strategic importance to them, such the Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq - which they have done despite American attempts to keep them out - not to export their version of Islam.

Those people despise the Persian nation at a visceral level. Saudi Arabia is islamic. Turkey is islamic. The UAE is islamic. Yet they allow the Great Satan, and benefactor of the hated Zionist Israel, to put our military on their soil. Because they fear an Iranian bomb? No. Because they HATE Iran with enough passion to choose American interference over Iranian interference.

That is your opinion but I have yet to meet an Arab who has a ''hatred'' for the Iranians. If anything, whilst they view the Iranians as being ''different'' many Arabs admire the Iranians for standing up to Uncle Sam, unlike their own leaders, who's main goal is regime survival and who have thrown in their lot with Uncle Sam for this reason. The current fear the Sunnis have with Iran is largely due to the Shia/Sunni schism, deep rooted fears from the 1980's that Iran was going the export the Revolution westwards and centuries of mistrust, even before the coming of Islam. Bear in mind that it was the Arabs who invaded Persia and brought Islam with them, not the other way around. If the Arabs have a traditional mistrust of outsiders it is with the Turks, rather than Iran, as the Turks under the Ottoman ruled the Arabs for many years.

The Arabs realise that if they get the bomb, the Iranians have no intention of using it to flatten Riyadh, Amman, Dubai or Doha but will use it as a 'platform' to strengthen their dealings with the Arabs and other countries. As far as the Arabs go, they have long accepted the fact that Israel has the bomb and this is something that they can live with. Iran or another Arab state getting the bomb is a totally different matter however. Also, the policy of allowing American troops on Arab land - a policy which is very unpopular with many Arabs and a reason of much discontent - has led to negative results. Saudi should have called for the complete withdrawal of the American military presence after the Gulf War. The Saudis did not follow this course as they were still worried about Saddam but also because, like other Arab states, they knew that an American military presence on their soil would act as some safeguard for their regimes, against internal dissent and external threats. Bear in mind that the presence of Western troops/advisors in Iran and Libya played a huge role in the overthrow of King Idris and the ''King of Kings''.

The US has handled their middle eastern policy poorly and it goes back further than 20 years, particularly with Iran. I'd push it back to the Mossadegh coup

An action for which Obama publicly aplogised for. Its so ironic, in that removal of Mossadegh led to the return of the Shah, which culminated in the revolution decades later.

I'm sure most people in the middle east would much rather see an attack on Israel than one on Iran. Their governments are a different story though.

Not necessarily so. What most people would like to see is a solution to the longstanding Palestine/Israel issue and the U.S. play a role as an impartial broker. With the Arab Spring, governments in the future might be more assertive over certain issues than they have in the past and that was one big concern the U.S. had over the overthrow of Mubarak - how a post-Mubarak government would deal with Israel. Just like how a post-Mubarak government might not be so eager to close the Gaza crossings, a post Syria Assad might push for the return of the Golan heights.

 

[surpreme]

War is inevitable now. The Iranian regime needs to focus on two objectives:
1. Hurt Israel as much as possible after an Israeli strike.
2. Stay in power whilst completing objective one.

Attacking U.S targets would be a massive mistake. Best to stick to Israel and give the impression to the U.S public that its "their" (Israel's) problem and not "ours" (America's).

I agreed with that to a point but U.S. is going to do something anyway. So pretty much keep targeting Israel not U.S. forces in the area. It's a good percentage that it could succeed with them two objectives

 

[surpreme]

You are highly mistaken. The Iranians DO NOT ''want to control all the other nations in the region with their version of Islam'' as they know that this is impossible to achieve. The Iranians perceive U.S. policy towards Iran, including attempts to contain Iran and prevent it from becoming a regional power [which it already is by the level of influence it has in certain countries] as contrary to Iranians interests and driven by the need to safeguard American interests - which include ensuring the security of Israel and the Arab states. What the Iranians want to do now, is to maintain their interests in the face of a Sunni Arab bloc that is in an alliance with Uncle Sam. And to maintain their influence in places of strategic importance to them, such the Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq - which they have done despite American attempts to keep them out - not to export their version of Islam.



That is your opinion but I have yet to meet an Arab who has a ''hatred'' for the Iranians. If anything, whilst they view the Iranians as being ''different'' many Arabs admire the Iranians for standing up to Uncle Sam, unlike their own leaders, who's main goal is regime survival and who have thrown in their lot with Uncle Sam for this reason. The current fear the Sunnis have with Iran is largely due to the Shia/Sunni schism, deep rooted fears from the 1980's that Iran was going the export the Revolution westwards and centuries of mistrust, even before the coming of Islam. Bear in mind that it was the Arabs who invaded Persia and brought Islam with them, not the other way around. If the Arabs have a traditional mistrust of outsiders it is with the Turks, rather than Iran, as the Turks under the Ottoman ruled the Arabs for many years.

The Arabs realise that if they get the bomb, the Iranians have no intention of using it to flatten Riyadh, Amman, Dubai or Doha but will use it as a 'platform' to strengthen their dealings with the Arabs and other countries. As far as the Arabs go, they have long accepted the fact that Israel has the bomb and this is something that they can live with. Iran or another Arab state getting the bomb is a totally different matter however. Also, the policy of allowing American troops on Arab land - a policy which is very unpopular with many Arabs and a reason of much discontent - has led to negative results. Saudi should have called for the complete withdrawal of the American military presence after the Gulf War. The Saudis did not follow this course as they were still worried about Saddam but also because, like other Arab states, they knew that an American military presence on their soil would act as some safeguard for their regimes, against internal dissent and external threats. Bear in mind that the presence of Western troops/advisors in Iran and Libya played a huge role in the overthrow of King Idris and the ''King of Kings''.



An action for which Obama publicly aplogised for. Its so ironic, in that removal of Mossadegh led to the return of the Shah, which culminated in the revolution decades later.



Not necessarily so. What most people would like to see is a solution to the longstanding Palestine/Israel issue and the U.S. play a role as an impartial broker. With the Arab Spring, governments in the future might be more assertive over certain issues than they have in the past and that was one big concern the U.S. had over the overthrow of Mubarak - how a post-Mubrak government would deal with Israel. A post Syria Assad might push for the return of the Golan heights and the new Egyptian government might not be so willing to toe the U.S. and Israeli line over Gaza.

The whole thing go back to the Israel and Palestine issue. Once the Israel and Palestine issue is solved there will be no peace until then, you will just have more groups to rise to take on the issue.

 

[STURM]

The whole thing go back to the Israel and Palestine issue. Once the Israel and Palestine issue is solved there will be no peace until then, you will just have more groups to rise to take on the issue.

As long as certain injustices are not dealt with, Al Qaeda and groups like it, will continue to exist and will continue to attract new recruits. If the Palestine/Israel isuue was finally resolved, if Arab states become more democratic, if the West stops imposing its ideals on Arab countries and stops supporting leaders who were never elected, Al Qaeda and groups like it will wither away.

 

[Twain]

Not necessarily so. What most people would like to see is a solution to the longstanding Palestine/Israel issue and the U.S. play a role as an impartial broker. With the Arab Spring, governments in the future might be more assertive over certain issues than they have in the past and that was one big concern the U.S. had over the overthrow of Mubarak - how a post-Mubarak government would deal with Israel. Just like how a post-Mubarak government might not be so eager to close the Gaza crossings, a post Syria Assad might push for the return of the Golan heights.

The US hasn't been an impartial broker most of the time but is any country that has an interest in the outcome ever an impartial party? And would any country that doesn't have a vested interest ever get involved? Every country pursues policies that it perceives to be in it's interests, that is not going to change. In my opinion, it's naive to expect a country to set aside what it perceives to be it's best interests in favor of being a neutral arbiter. That's not to say that mistakes aren't made, but blaming a country for pursuing it's interests really isn't facing reality.

On a slightly different note, I'm not convinced that either the Israeli leadership or Palestinian leadership really want peace. I am sure I am in a minority in saying this, but I think there is a strong possibility that vested interests in both Israel and the occupied territories are more interested in maintaining the status quo than they are in reaching any sort of agreement. It's about power and money and any settlement between Israel and the Palestinians would change the power structure too much.

 

[2007yellow430]

The US hasn't been an impartial broker most of the time but is any country that has an interest in the outcome ever an impartial party? And would any country that doesn't have a vested interest ever get involved? Every country pursues policies that it perceives to be in it's interests, that is not going to change. In my opinion, it's naive to expect a country to set aside what it perceives to be it's best interests in favor of being a neutral arbiter. That's not to say that mistakes aren't made, but blaming a country for pursuing it's interests really isn't facing reality.

On a slightly different note, I'm not convinced that either the Israeli leadership or Palestinian leadership really want peace. I am sure I am in a minority in saying this, but I think there is a strong possibility that vested interests in both Israel and the occupied territories are more interested in maintaining the status quo than they are in reaching any sort of agreement. It's about power and money and any settlement between Israel and the Palestinians would change the power structure too much.

Actually, the Palestians do want peace. The Israelis don't. They don't have enough land, water rights, etc. quite yet, and nobody is forcing them to behave. When that happens there will be peace but not until.

Art

 

[Twain]

Actually, the Palestians do want peace. The Israelis don't. They don't have enough land, water rights, etc. quite yet, and nobody is forcing them to behave. When that happens there will be peace but not until.

Art

I'm not talking about the general populace of the occupied territories, I am talking about the Palestinian leadership.

 

[STURM]

The US hasn't been an impartial broker most of the time but is any country that has an interest in the outcome ever an impartial party?

Let me ask you this.... Is it not in the interest of America for the Palestine/Israel issue to be resolved? If it was resolved, wouldn't that solve one major problem, as to it being a prime factor in why there is so much discontent in the Arab world towards America?

On a slightly different note, I'm not convinced that either the Israeli leadership or Palestinian leadership really want peace. I am sure I am in a minority in saying this, but I think there is a strong possibility that vested interests in both Israel and the occupied territories are more interested in maintaining the status quo than they are in reaching any sort of agreement. It's about power and money and any settlement between Israel and the Palestinians would change the power structure too much.

Lets jump ahead of ourselves here for a moment.

Imagine a Middle East that was 'stable' and one that had been successfuly reshaped by the neo-cons to suit U.S. or Western interests. If Assad falls and a 'friendly' government takes power and is interested in sorting out its internal problems rather than contesting supremacy with Israel in Lebanon and which led to Hzbollah losing its power, if the Palestinans were granted their own state which was not allowed to have any 'heavy' weapons and was still dependent on Isreal for many things and if Iran saw the 'error of its ways' and capitulated to U.S. demands and 'behaved' - would there by any reason for Israel to still be the beneficiary of so much U.S. financial aid, would Israel still need spent so much to ensure the IDF maintained such a qualitative edge against the Arabs, if so against whom and what reason would Uncle Sam have to still maintain a military presence on Arab land?

 

[STURM]

Actually, the Palestians do want peace. The Israelis don't.

Actually, the Israeli leadership also wants peace as it realises that as long as the issue it unresolved it will remain a thorn in the side of Israel. The question is how far they are prepare to go and they are also still very unsure as to how a future Palestinian state will look it and effect Israel. Then, there are still hawks who are convinced that the Palestinians don't really want peace. At the rate things are going - with land that has been earmarked for a future Palestinian state shrinking because of the continued building of settlements - many believe a 2 state solution is not achievable. Ultimately, Israel cannot have peace AND land - it has to choose.

The position of both parties has undergone considerable change over the decades as is expected. The Israeli position in the 1970's up to the 1980's was that the Palestinan problem didn't exist and they hoped that eventually, the problem would just go away and the Palestinians would be absorbed by other countries - that didn't happen. One reason why Arafat, despite all his many, many failings as a leader is still remembered fondly by most Palestinians [including those who were against him or Fattah] is because he never did let the world forget that there was a Palestinian issue - he keep the issue alive and ensure it continued to get public attention.

Whilst the Palestinian/Israeli issue is one major reason why Iran has problems with Israel and why the U.S. is unpopular with many in the Arab world and as such is related to our discussion on Iran - we are getting very off- topic.

 

[Twain]

Let me ask you this.... Is it not in the interest of America for the Palestine/Israel issue to be resolved? If it was resolved, wouldn't that solve one major problem, as to it being a prime factor in why there is so much discontent in the Arab world towards America?

I understand you think that is what is in the best interests of the US, the US obviously differs. Also don't confuse this with my personal opinion on the subject either. I can tell you I agree with neither you nor the US government.

My point is that asking a country that has vested interests in the subject to act as a neutral arbiter on that subject is foolish. Countries act in what they perceive to be their best interests, all of them.

Lets jump ahead of ourselves here for a moment.

Imagine a Middle East that was 'stable' and one that had been successfuly reshaped by the neo-cons to suit U.S. or Western interests. If Assad falls and a 'friendly' government takes power and is interested in sorting out its internal problems rather than contesting supremacy with Israel in Lebanon and which led to Hzbollah losing its power, if the Palestinans were granted their own state which was not allowed to have any 'heavy' weapons and was still dependent on Isreal for many things and if Iran saw the 'error of its ways' and capitulated to U.S. demands and 'behaved' - would there by any reason for Israel to still be the beneficiary of so much U.S. financial aid, would Israel still need spent so much to ensure the IDF maintained such a qualitative edge against the Arabs, if so against whom and what reason would Uncle Sam have to still maintain a military presence on Arab land?

There are a lot of "ifs" in that statement, a highly hypothetical question to say the least. Some of them are extremely unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. I'll address the one I think is most unlikely though, Iran. (and more on topic)

Iran has virtually no allies, the only countries you can reasonably call an ally are Syria, Lebanon (maybe), venezuela and north korea. That's not exactly a sterling list to be picking from. Lebanon is little more than a client state. Syria, ruled by a dictator. North Korea, do I need to say anything here? Venezuela, ruled by a near dictator. Not even russia and china can be called allies of Iran. Russia definitely doesn't trust Iran at all and China offers a little support mainly for economic reasons.

The Iranian leadership has completely mismanaged their economy, The IRGC is the largest smuggling operation in Iran, Candidates for office can be disqualified for no reason under the pretense of not being religious enough. Then there is the Iranian firewall. There are reasons Iran has no allies to speak of, they need a demon from outside to justify their continued leadership to the people. Much like many countries, Iran users an external threat to distract from their own inadequacies. Under your scenario, if Iran somehow made peace with the US, they would just find another demon. That's not to say that the US hasn't made huge mistakes with Iran in the past.

But anyway, back on topic. What would happen in Iran were to attack Israel or US bases in the ME first? Or possibly attempt to close the strait of Hormuz?