Iran Invasion soon ?

[ngatimozart]

The US has learned a lot, but so have their opponents. The Iranian forces will refuse go head-to-head with the US forces mechanized units in the open, but fight in the urban areas, or hide and wait to attack the vulnerable support units that follow. It won’t be like OIF in 2003, but like the later years in Iraq and Afghanistan. You will probably also see extensive use of suicide bombers targeting patrols and civil administration, plus targeted assassinations on anyone cooperating.

Failure is a matter of perspective. The US is generally seen to have failed in Iraq, and is failing in Afghanistan, but was not defeated in either country. You don’t defeat the US militarily, you just outlast them politically to win. Which is pure SunTzu.

It is not in the regimes best interest to cooperate with a US occupation, quite the opposite in fact -- meekly give in to the people they have demonized for so long would make them look weak, which is political (and probably physical as well) suicide. So they will go underground and outlast you, then surface when you pull out and proclaim they beat the US, with a certain amount of legitimacy.

The people of Iran may not like their present government, but it is not a dictatorship controlled by a hated minority group like in Iraq. The dislike is centered on individual members on the government, much like your dislike of Obama. From the point of view of invading Iran, think of it as more like a large dysfunctional family – they fight with each other all the time, but god help anyone, like the police, who attempts to intervene because they will all attack the intervener. In an invasion the Iranian government will not cooperate, will not really fall, and the invasion will cement support from the vast majority of the population firmly behind the hidden government for the duration of the occupation.

Unlike under the Shah, the government of Iran is a Shi’a theocracy, not a secular government. The hegemony Iran wants is religious (the control of the holy places, like Mecca), and they seek secular power in support of that goal. US support for that aspiration will bring them into conflict with the global Sunni population, which outnumbers Iran by about 20 to 1, an extremely bad idea.

There is another thing you need to think about. Taking the dysfunctional family concept to the next level, a US attack on Iran will immediately be seen by the majority of Muslims as another Christian Crusade against Islam and you will have Sunni & Shia side by side, not happily, but defending Islam against the Crusaders and the great satan. Whilst the Saudis may not like the Iranian theocracy, they will not be impressed about a US attack against Iran. This is not GW1 where one Arab state was invaded by another who happened to be a dictator. IMHO Arab and Muslim eyes will see a sharp distinction between the Iraq invasion of Kuwait and any US attack / invasion of Iran - the first a dictator the second an Islamic theocracy.

 

[My2Cents]

There is another thing you need to think about. Taking the dysfunctional family concept to the next level, a US attack on Iran will immediately be seen by the majority of Muslims as another Christian Crusade against Islam and you will have Sunni & Shia side by side, not happily, but defending Islam against the Crusaders and the great satan. Whilst the Saudis may not like the Iranian theocracy, they will not be impressed about a US attack against Iran. This is not GW1 where one Arab state was invaded by another who happened to be a dictator. IMHO Arab and Muslim eyes will see a sharp distinction between the Iraq invasion of Kuwait and any US attack / invasion of Iran - the first a dictator the second an Islamic theocracy.

Actually, most of the Gulf states, except Iraq, would probably side with the US given a proper political buildup, if Iran keeps up the semi-hidden nuclear program that makes them very nervous. Iraq might support an attack as well if they think it will allow them to the top of the Shia religion.

Remember, Shia and Sunni consider each other apostates, and in Islam that can be a death sentence. ‘Muslims vs. the World’ may be the appeal, but ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ may yet trump it to produce ‘strange bedfelllows’.

 

[lucinator]

So barring a leader like Sarah Palin, Iran is getting that nuke cause it knows u.s hasn't got the political will to stop them.

Best chance we have now is kicking the can down the road. If next administration bombs iran heavily or more. This will buy enough time for the next administration, where a leader like sarah palin might come into the picture. She could muster a credible invasion force, which if used as a threat, would make iran surrender to all demands. Granted probably only as long as the threat of invasion loomed.



Iraq was invaded and occupied by a very hobbled u.s military

seriously you think Sarah Palin is a good leader? what synthetic pot have you been smoking. I've never seen a politician worse in the area of foreign affairs. Seriously she thought that she has foreign policy experience since she lived in Alaska and "could see Russia from my porch." Also did not know even know many countries existed, or thought imaginary countries were real. (for those of you who are not from the United States, most people know she's nuts). She also belonged to a church that believed that Alaska was the holy land and would be spared from the coming of the apocalypse which would take the form of a nuclear holocaust, not someone I would ever want with her finger on the nuclear button.

Also in 2003 the US military was at its strongest in years, the only hobbled thing was Rumsfeld and And Dick Cheney

 

[STURM]

TWhilst the Saudis may not like the Iranian theocracy, they will not be impressed about a US attack against Iran.

Saudi, like all her Sunni neighbours who have aligned themselves with Uncle Sam and who rely greatly on Uncle Sam for their security, would welcome strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. But all are extremely concerned that strikes will lead to all out war, which would lead to further instability and could even perhaps threaten the very survival of their regimes.

Actually, most of the Gulf states, except Iraq, would probably side with the US given a proper political buildup,

The key problem here is the populations of most these countries will not support an attack and will see it, quite rightly, as yet another war waged by the West against yet another Muslim country [never mind that Iran is Shia] for dubious reasons, at a time when the most pressing problem - the Palestinian/Israel issue - has yet to be resolved. Not to mention the hyprocisy behind it, of attacking an Iran which is 'suspected' of wanting to develop nukes, as opposed to Israel whom everybody knows has nukes and who's nuclear programme can't even be debated, as everytime questions are asked about Israel's nukes, Uncle Sam blocks all discussions.

Iraq might support an attack as well if they think it will allow them to the top of the Shia religion.

Iraq is majority Shia and has gone to great lenghts to improve its relations with Iran, as relations with Iran are more important for Iraq's long term interests than relations with any of its other neighbours. It has absolutely nothing to gain from wanting military action to be undertaken agains Iran, let alone supporting an attack on Iran.

What really disturbs me is that nobody has asked the most vital questions. All this talk about Iran wanting to 'intimidate' its neighbours, to 'dominate' the region, to convert the whole region to Shiaism and to wipe Israel off the face of the map doesn't stand up to scrutiny or logic.

1. Why in the first place would Iran find itself in the position where it felt that nukes where needed to safeguard its interests/security?

2. Even if Iran were to get nukes, why would it use these nukes to 'threaten' the West and Israel if Iran itself was not threatened or attacked? Why would Iran launch a nuke missile towards Israel in the knowledge that the U.S. and Israel would retaliate in kind and that a nuke missile launched towards Israel wold in all certainty also wipe out the Palestinan population, not to mention parts of Syria and Lebanon.

3. What is the real reason that Israel is so determined that Iran not get its nukes, is it truly because if fears its very survival [as Netanyahu constantly tells us] or is the real reason because the Isreal's wants to ensure its nuclear monopoly and the knowledge that Iran has nukes will mean that Israel will have to display extra caution in its dealing with its Arab neighbours?

 

[Ananda]

1. Why in the first place would Iran find itself in the position where it felt that nukes where needed to safeguard its interests/security?

2. Even if Iran were to get nukes, why would it use these nukes to 'threaten' the West and Israel if Iran itself was not threatened or attacked? Why would Iran launch a nuke missile towards Israel in the knowledge that the U.S. and Israel would retaliate in kind and that a nuke missile launched towards Israel wold in all certainty also wipe out the Palestinan population, not to mention parts of Syria and Lebanon.

3. What is the real reason that Israel is so determined that Iran not get its nukes, is it truly because if fears its very survival [as Netanyahu constantly tells us] or is the real reason because the Isreal's wants to ensure its nuclear monopoly and the knowledge that Iran has nukes will mean that Israel will have to display extra caution in its dealing with its Arab neighbours?

If Iran still under Shah, will they still developed Nuclear Technology ?

I've read sometime ago on an old IAEA report that show Shah Iran effort in getting Nuclear Tech. It show, despite the closeness of Shah Iran to US and West and relative cordial relationship with Israel, it did not hold his ambitions on getting Nuclear Tech.

What would Israel do if Iran under Shah still developing Nuclear ? What would the rest of ME fell.

What I'm getting at, under Shah or under Mullah, Iran feel that it's their right as 'Persian' to hold one of dominant position on ME. With that Nuclear will be the 'aim' as long as Israel has one.

US and the West can't hope that Iran or someone else in the region not harboring Nuclear ambitions as long as they put blind eyes to Israel Nuclear arsenal. When Pakistan blew their first nuke, there are enough opinion in US and the West that feel; 'all right, this is the last time we let an Islamic nation has Nuclear arsenal'. However they forgot, Pakistan nuke's is to answered India, and nothing to do with Israel.

Israel hope by disarming Iran Nuclear tech, no one else in the region will developed Nuke's. Well is false hope, since as long as they (Israel) have it, some one else in the region will try to have one. It's just matter of time.

One other thing, compared to Iraq Nuclear program, Iran is more advance not just the matter of HARD infrastructures, but also in SOFT ones. There are enough Nuclear scientist and technicians that Iran already train and developed. How you can stop that ?

 

[STURM]

If Iran still under Shah, will they still developed Nuclear Technology?

Ananda, the Shah publically said he wanted a bomb and it was he who strated the programme, not the 'mad' mullahs. After the Revolution, the mullahs dismantled the programme because it was ''un-Islamic'' but Khomeni reluctantly revived it when Saddam started using gas and it was clear he also had nuclear ambitions.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmAL4SaGA0s"]The Full Story of Iran's Nuclear Program - Robert Fisk - YouTube[/nomedia].

IWell is false hope, since as long as they (Israel) have it, some one else in the region will try to have one. It's just matter of time.

I disagree. As long as Uncle Sam guarantess the security of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, these have no need for a bomb and they are the only ones who can actually afford to have a nuke programme. Besides, after all the revelations regarding AQ Khan's activities, getting access to the technology is not as easy as it used to be, especially given that the Americans will be on the lookout.

Israel hope by disarming Iran Nuclear tech, no one else in the region will developed Nuke's.

Israel indeed wants to retain its nuclear monopoly [who wouldn't?] and this off course suits American aims as American policy towards the region has always been aimed at safeguarding the security of Israel and ensuring that Isreal retains a military edge over the Arabs. And as for the Arabs, they are more than happy for Israel to have the bomb - as their main concern traditionally has not been Israel but other Arab countries - but last thing they want is another Arab country, or worser still, the 'heretic' Iranians to have the bomb.

How you can stop that ?

The million dollar question is what will the next course of action if after a devastating strike, it is found that Iran's infrastructure is still in place? How many strikes can Israel launch? If we're to believe what the Israeli's tell us, Iran would have had the bomb a decade ago and would already have long used it on Haifa, Elait and Tel Aviv! Bear in mind, the Israeli's would have us believe that the 'mad' mullahs lie rolling in bed everynight waiting for the day when they can strike at Israel - why exactly the 'mad' mullahs would risk the complete destruction of their country is something the Isreali's haven't seen fit to explain to us.

 

[Ananda]

Israel indeed wants to retain its nuclear monopoly [who wouldn't?] and this off course suits American aims as American policy towards the region has always been aimed at safeguarding the security of Israel and ensuring that Isreal retains a military edge over the Arabs. And as for the Arabs, they are more than happy for Israel to have the bomb - as their main concern traditionally has not been Israel but other Arab countries - but last thing they want is another Arab country, or worser still, the 'heretic' Iranians.

Israel will do anything if it can help their 'holy' cause of regime change in Iran.
However for Arabs, well the Saudi's and other 'royals' regime in the Gulf will be happy for US umbrella. However the street fells of ordinary Arabs will not be entirely similar with them? Arab Spring show that.

Will any of us can predict that Egypt will not try to get their own nukes in the decades ahead, if Israel monopoly remain unchallenged? Will Arabs popular fells in the street will stay silent and content for Israel nuclear monoploy in years ahead?

What I'm getting at, Israel already open nuclear pandora box in ME decades ago when they build their Dimona facility. Some day, someone else will catch up in ME, regardless what the Israel play at.

 

[STURM]

Will any of us can predict that Egypt will not try to get their own nukes in the decades ahead, if Israel monopoly remain unchallenged?

To what end? Egypt is the 2nd largest recipient of U.S. aid after Israel, why would it want to jeopardise that? The main concern of Egypt, during Mubarak's time was internal security, in keeping groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in check, not Israel. Prior to the Arab Spring, as long as Mubarak played his part in curbing the Muslim Brotherhood in check and did not 'threaten' Israel or make too much noise about Israel's occupation of Palestinian land, the U.S. was more than happy to maintain the status quo. Anyhow, even if Egypt wanted to get a nuke, where would it turn to and how would get the billions needed?

As I mentioned before, Egypt and the Gulf States had no issues with Israel having the bomb, nor with Israel being the dominant military power, as they had no wish to go into conflict with Israel, their main concern was regime survival and keeping an eye on each other. For Jordan, a strong Israel has always provided it with a certain guarantee in case larger Arab neighbours decided to cause trouble. Look at what happened during Black September when Syria invaded Jordan, Israel was ready to intervene if the Syrians had gone any further into Jordan.

 

[Ananda]

Sturm, the problem nobody know for certain the new regime arise from Arab Spring will behave in yeras ahead. They are not the result of usual Arabs politics, they result of popular uprising. That's why Netanyahu still hoping for Assad in the helm of Syria, since he (and Israel) did not know and much worried on what will replace him.

The Arab spring changes the status quo. Granted now only Iran that has the means and resources to pursue Nuclear ambitions, however with this game changing environment resulted by Arab spring, nobody will be sure what eventually come out from Egypt and Lybia.

Invading Iran will potentialy resulted new symphaty for Iran on the Arab street, which can resulted on changing attitude from some current regime on what they will do in the relationship to Israel. Like you say, the regimes in ME will see their survival is the most importsnt factor. Before Arab Spring most of them can discount popular fell in the street as is, and focus more to each other as more potential threat. Arab spring shocked them and realising them their survival more tied to street factors than external ones.

All I'm say, the nuclear monopoly of Israel, potentially now being seen in Arab streets (and not in the regimes), as unifying forces against Israel especially if they do something stupid like invading Iran.

 

[My2Cents]

Will any of us can predict that Egypt will not try to get their own nukes in the decades ahead, if Israel monopoly remain unchallenged? Will Arabs popular fells in the street will stay silent and content for Israel nuclear monoploy in years ahead?

There is a world of distance between a Iranian nuclear program and an Egyptian nuclear program. Part of this thread is a debate about whether it is possible for Israel to even delay Iran’s program using aircraft. But Egypt is Israel’s next door neighbor, so there is nothing to stop Israel from sending in half the IDF on the ground to drive/fight to the facilities, and set up a complete demo job.

Egypt cannot even think of a peaceful nuclear program without first either negotiating a rigorous inspection protocol to satisfy Israeli paranoia, or first a massive buildup in their conventional military forces to defend it, which would put too much power and temptation in the hands of the generals.

 

[Ananda]

There is a world of distance between a Iranian nuclear program and an Egyptian nuclear program.

Egypt cannot even think of a peaceful nuclear program without first either negotiating a rigorous inspection protocol to satisfy Israeli paranoia, or first a massive buildup in their conventional military forces to defend it, which would put too much power and temptation in the hands of the generals.

Something that will not come in play, if Israel did not attack or Invade Iranian first. US led invasions (which will not be likely happen under Obama), even very risky can be 'still potentially' contain to Iran alone (though which much diplomatic effort and other incentive to the Arab regimes). However Israel invasions which can only provide limited damage to Iran nuclear program at best, will also give momentum in the Arab street to push their regime to make tougher stances with Israel.

Egypt is without Mubarak anymore. The one in the helm is not Mubarak cronies anymore. Can Israel afford with hostile Egypt with renewed Nuclear program (due to street demand), while in the same time they can't put considerable damage in stooping Iran Nuclear ones ?

That potentially will happen if they choose to attack Iran (alone). a renewed sympathy to Iranian mullah in Arab street (where before it usually can be contain), and force the regimes to cater the more hostile stance toward Israel (in order to save their own behind).

When that happen, you can bet the 'case' of Israel nuclear monopoly will be popular issue in Arab street, and will push some of the regimes to build more aggressive nuclear program, just to satisfied the street demand.

For Egypt it will mean the end of US support, however by that time 'rationality' will not be the main factor anymore. Street demand is.

 

[crest]

first off hi great fourm you guys have here been looking for a good millitary fourm for awile. Informed and logical is not the norm on most fourms and i congradualte this coumnity on haveing just that

Sorry my first post will be a bit long but on this topic i have done quite a bit of theorising. i agree with most posters here that the u.s has no intrest in a ground war with iran. Well the general train of thought seems to be air strikes are posiable if not probable i actuly disagree with that

Its not because Iran is in any way a real threat to the u.s or allied air forces tho, a air campain would have some losses. The problome with iran imop is that it realy has a plethora of options that could drag the us into a unwanted ground war and potentially one with few alies. Much has been made of irans threats to block the straits but noone seems to conciter the implecations of iran responding without using that option.

Not only would iran closing the straits deprive it of its alies in the u.n (russia and china) it would also no doubt be used as a rallying point for the u.s to incress its coalition and balince the condemation it would recive world wide from attacking iran by reopening the straits. Somthing that would be done easyer then many seem to think
On the other hand keeping it open well responding by attacking u.s bases in reagion and isreal would put the presure on the u.s to find alies even the arab nations opposed to iran would have difficulty attacking iran if she chose to keep the straits open and launched rockets at isreal (no doubt a popular move in the m.e). Iran with all its forces already in theater by default could attack one or more u.s bases forcing a humilating retreat potentialy even a defeat on u.s forces as unlikely as that sounds it is a very real posabilty unless the u.s chooses to incress forces or pull back forces in bases and outposts close to iranian borders before a air strike

Either one of thoes outcomes would requier a strong us response draging us further into full out war with iran either by ground or expanding the air campain indefently (as Iran is unlikly to surrender on favorable tearms to a air campain alone)
with china/russia blocking u.n moves against iran, the fact that the u.s will be seen as a agresser around the world if it attacks first, the political probolems a arab state would have delaring war on a country attacking isreal, and the removale of the all the probloms iran would have internationly from closing the straits Iran could go along way to isolating the u.s to just a very few alies by keeping the oil flowing

It can also force the us to respond by attacking one of the micro kingdomes it borders and the u.s will have to respond. Its a suicide move for iran in the long run but they just might go japan style and figger they can force a settlement if they sting them hard enuff

I think this line of thinking is lost on neither iranian or u.s stratigests (and neither is the fact iran will hold u.s hostages agian somthing no president wants to be in the hot seat for)

And a ground war is a awfull option for the u.s as iran is a leader in asemtrical warfare with proven tactics and experience and a operating enviroment positivly poisonious to a united states ocupation. Dont get me wrong in no senerio can iran defeat the u.s in a ground war but they can make it very costly as im shure most people in these fourms are aware so i can save the time of typing it out


I know this post bases its premis on the geopolitcs of the sitiuation but as clausewitz says..anyways want to keep this post somwhat reasonable in length so ill end it

 

[My2Cents]

Its not because Iran is in any way a real threat to the u.s or allied air forces tho, a air campain would have some losses. The problome with iran imop is that it realy has a plethora of options that could drag the us into a unwanted ground war and potentially one with few alies. Much has been made of irans threats to block the straits but noone seems to conciter the implecations of iran responding without using that option.

Not only would iran closing the straits deprive it of its alies in the u.n (russia and china) it would also no doubt be used as a rallying point for the u.s to incress its coalition and balince the condemation it would recive world wide from attacking iran by reopening the straits. Somthing that would be done easyer then many seem to think
On the other hand keeping it open well responding by attacking u.s bases in reagion and isreal would put the presure on the u.s to find alies even the arab nations opposed to iran would have difficulty attacking iran if she chose to keep the straits open and launched rockets at isreal (no doubt a popular move in the m.e). Iran with all its forces already in theater by default could attack one or more u.s bases forcing a humilating retreat potentialy even a defeat on u.s forces as unlikely as that sounds it is a very real posabilty unless the u.s chooses to incress forces or pull back forces in bases and outposts close to iranian borders before a air strike

Much as I disagree with many on this forum that Iran is incapable of causing much harm to the US in the Gulf, Iran simply lack the ability to take a base or force the withdrawal of those force, which include 2 carrier battle groups. Given that the Americans would have to transit the Strait of Hormuz to retreat from the Gulf after the fighting starts, they would be more or less trapped in the Gulf until it ends, even if the strait is not blocked by Iran. They would just be too vulnerable.

Desert Storm in 1991 showed that as long as Israel does not strike back, and, unlike in Iraq, Israel is extremely limited as to what they could do without Arab cooperation, that the Arab nations will not automatically switch support a nation attacking Israel. They will especially not do so for Iran, because Iran is not Sunni Arab, but Shia Persian. Israel has missile defenses now, which they did not have in 1991, which will mitigate the effects, and Iran has only a limited number of missiles with the range to reach Israel. Most of those missiles are believed not to have guidance systems capable of targeting anything smaller than a city. These missiles are adaptations of shorter range missiles, and achieved those ranges at the expense of reduced warhead sizes, further limiting the damage they can do, unless WMDs warheads, mostly likely gas (Mustard or Sarin), are used. If WMDs are used on the US forces or Israel Iran’s support in the UN and the rest of the world is gone, the US takes the gloves off, and the Iranian theocracy will shortly be history.

Any attack on US forces in the Gulf would give the US cause to board and impound any vessel carrying Iranian oil. They still are exporting about 1/3 their pre-sanction capacity, mostly to China and India. Loss of that trade would be disastrous in the long run, say 2+ months. They are also dependent on the rest of the Gulf states for a variety of necessary imports, which would also be lost in a US blockade. All this would be possible without the US going much beyond coastal strikes.

Either one of thoes outcomes would requier a strong us response draging us further into full out war with iran either by ground or expanding the air campain indefently (as Iran is unlikly to surrender on favorable tearms to a air campain alone)
with china/russia blocking u.n moves against iran, the fact that the u.s will be seen as a agresser around the world if it attacks first, the political probolems a arab state would have delaring war on a country attacking isreal, and the removale of the all the probloms iran would have internationly from closing the straits Iran could go along way to isolating the u.s to just a very few alies by keeping the oil flowing

It can also force the us to respond by attacking one of the micro kingdomes it borders and the u.s will have to respond. Its a suicide move for iran in the long run but they just might go japan style and figger they can force a settlement if they sting them hard enuff

Directly attacking one of the ‘micro kingdoms’ is the surest way for Iran force the rest of the Gulf, and the rest of the Arab governments, into the arms of the USA. Iran knows this. An indirect attack via a Shia uprising will be handled by forces from the neighboring governments, most likely Saudi Arabia, not by the USA.

I think this line of thinking is lost on neither iranian or u.s stratigests (and neither is the fact iran will hold u.s hostages agian somthing no president wants to be in the hot seat for)

And a ground war is a awfull option for the u.s as iran is a leader in asemtrical warfare with proven tactics and experience and a operating enviroment positivly poisonious to a united states ocupation. Dont get me wrong in no senerio can iran defeat the u.s in a ground war but they can make it very costly as im shure most people in these fourms are aware so i can save the time of typing it out

I know this post bases its premis on the geopolitcs of the sitiuation but as clausewitz says..anyways want to keep this post somwhat reasonable in length so ill end it

An invasion to take over Iran is likely to be a disaster for the invaders. A massive raid, where the attackers avoid trying to take and hold any of the cities and retreat immediately after achieving their objectives (probably destroying known parts of the Iranian nuclear program), could be a political disaster for Iran, who cannot defeat the forces already in the region in open warfare, and knows it.

Currently Iran is playing for time, hoping something will come along and change the situation in their favor. All their options for direct action are bad, but some are worse. Picking a fight with anyone in the Gulf is definitely in the ‘worse’ column. Tricking the US into attacking Iran would be not as bad.

 

[crest]

i agree with most of what you have said m2c with the exception that, well yes iran attacking isreal will not make muslim nations "switch sides" the suni divide and national intrests of other nations is to great for that. Iran dosn't need them to switch sides only to be put in a position were it would cause domestic probloms for them so overtly suport the u.s/isreal

I belive the question on this thread is will the u.s attack soon well there is a thread on what you would do if you were the iranians and the u.s in this thread does not take american action/commitment as a give in and why i post here


My belief is the u.s has little intrest or or domestic suport for a major campain in iran either a extended air campain and even less for full on invasion. Iran has the ability to keep its alies in the u.n well limiting a coalition the u.s can build.
Iran has no options that would favor it to win in anysort of war with the u.s but it does have the abilty to force the u.s into a large expecive domesticly unpopular conflict with few military alies. and perhaps draw if the american public decides to pull the plug on any u.s military action
The fact that Iran has the ablity to force the u.s into a wider unwanted conflict is imop enuff of a deternt to prevent u.s airstikes in the first place unless the u.s has hard undeniable evidence that Iran is about to produce the bomb i dont belive we will be bombing iran any time soon say 6 months or so

 

[STURM]

Desert Storm in 1991 showed that as long as Israel does not strike back, and, unlike in Iraq, Israel is extremely limited as to what they could do without Arab cooperation, that the Arab nations will not automatically switch support a nation attacking Israel. They will especially not do so for Iran, because Iran is not Sunni Arab, but Shia Persian.

Times have changed since 1991 and so has the geo-political situation, especially after the Arab Spring. Irrespective of the fact that Iran is Shia, the average men in the street in most Arab countries - several of which have Shias in the populations - will not welcome another war on another Muslim country, and this is a fact that the rulers of the Gulf States will have to take into account. The rulers of the Gulf States will also have to take into account that Iran is in their backyard and that whatever happens, they will still need some sort of accomodation with Iran, as unlike the U.S., they live in the same neighbourhood with Iran and Iran is a very important country in the larger scheme of things, and has been for ages. Whilst in private, the rulers of the Gulf States might welcome a strike on Iran [due to fears that having nukes will strenghten Iran's hand in its future dealing with its neighbours and not due to fears that Dharan, Amman or Doha will be nuked by theIranians], in the hope that this will set back Irans supposed nuclear ambitions, they also have no wish to see Iran engulf in the chaos that afflicted Iraq, because of the U.S. invasion.

Not only would iran closing the straits deprive it of its alies in the u.n (russia and china) it would also no doubt be used as a rallying point for the u.s to incress its coalition and balince the condemation it would recive world wide from attacking iran by reopening the straits.

I feel too much emphasis has been placed on the immediate consequences of a strike on Iran and how Iran will retaliate and what the U.S. in turn will do, etc. What we should also be discussing is the long term effects, e.g., how it might further damage America's standing with the Muslim world, how it might affect Lebanon and Syria and in turn affect other countries, how it might affect the Sunni Gulf States, how it will affect Russia and China's position with the West, etc. The parallels with the situation in 2003, prior to the invasion of Iraq, are very apparent, too little emphasis has been placed in figuring out how to cope with the after affects of military action on Iran and its long term affects on the geo-political situation.

Dont get me wrong in no senerio can iran defeat the u.s in a ground war but they can make it very costly as im shure most people in these fourms are aware so i can save the time of typing it out

It doesn't have to defeat the U.S., all it has to do is outlast the U.S., like what the Vietnamese did and what the Afghans are currently doing.

 

[NICO]

.....I feel too much emphasis has been placed on the immediate consequences of a strike on Iran and how Iran will retaliate and what the U.S. in turn will do, etc. What we should also be discussing is the long term effects, e.g., how it might further damage America's standing with the Muslim world, how it might affect Lebanon and Syria and in turn affect other countries, how it might affect the Sunni Gulf States, how it will affect Russia and China's position with the West, etc. The parallels with the situation in 2003, prior to the invasion of Iraq, are very apparent, too little emphasis has been placed in figuring out how to cope with the after affects of military action on Iran and its long term affects on the geo-political situation.



It doesn't have to defeat the U.S., all it has to do is outlast the U.S., like what the Vietnamese did and what the Afghans are currently doing.

I agree with you STURM. I feel that there has been little to no thought put into the aftermath of an attack on Iran from Israel/USA. While I understand the Israelis position, the USA should look at it's own interests which are the ones of a global power. My fear is if USA does launch an attack, if successful, what will the other nations around the world think? Will they see USA and Western Powers just ganging up on a developing nation? Just another bunch of white guys taking to the wood shed some poor brown fellow?

Will those nations just then join whatever coalition the Russians and especially the Chinese can muster up? I believe more we "trash" Iran, the more likely we will see smaller nations coalesce around China for protection. Is that what the USA wants? How does that favor the US in the long term?

Another element that is never discussed in the US, after we attack, how the hell then can we tell Russia not to intervene in Chechen or not invade a -stan? How about China? Does any one expect them to listen to USA about Tibet or human rights after the attack? More likely they will tell USA to "talk to the hand"!

 

[Volkodav]

Has anyone actually considered that it may be to everyones advantage to let Iran have the bomb? Once they have it they will have to behave as grown ups as the consequenses of not doing so have just become much greater, i.e. a nuclear strike against a non-nuclear state could never be justified, however should Iran use nuclear weapons against another state, nuclear retaliation will be on the cards.

 

[STURM]

Has anyone actually considered that it may be to everyones advantage to let Iran have the bomb?

Once, actually if, Iran gets the bomb, the leadership in Tehran will be more confident and secure against the possibility of certain countries attempting regime change. Sunni Gulf Arab states will be nervous and turn more to Uncle Sam for assurance, not because of fears that Iran will send a nuclear tipped Scud towards Doha or Dahran but because then, Iran will be more vocal concerning the treatment of Shia in places like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, and might actually intervene the next time a Shia protest is violent suppressed by Bahrain or Saudi para-military units. In time, I'm convinced that the Arab states will eventually get use to an Iranian bomb and will learn to live with it, just as countries did after India and Pakistan joined the 'club'. The country that is very 'uncomfortable' with Iran having the bomb off course is Israel, not because of fears that Iran will nuke Israel in the future but because Israel will lose its nuclear monopoly and this will affect its future dealings with its Arab neighbours. We often forget that Israel has the bomb, though we're often discouraged to talk about it or debate it at the UN, and knowledge that Israel has the bomb has played a huge part in how Arab states conduct their dealings with Israel.

 

[Bastian]

Once, actually if, Iran gets the bomb, the leadership in Tehran will be more confident and secure against the possibility of certain countries attempting regime change. Sunni Gulf Arab states will be nervous and turn more to Uncle Sam for assurance, not because of fears that Iran will send a nuclear tipped Scud towards Doha or Dahran but because then, Iran will be more vocal concerning the treatment of Shia in places like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, and might actually intervene the next time a Shia protest is violent suppressed by Bahrain or Saudi para-military units. In time, I'm convinced that the Arab states will eventually get use to an Iranian bomb and will learn to live with it, just as countries did after India and Pakistan joined the 'club'. The country that is very 'uncomfortable' with Iran having the bomb off course is Israel, not because of fears that Iran will nuke Israel in the future but because Israel will lose its nuclear monopoly and this will affect its future dealings with its Arab neighbours. We often forget that Israel has the bomb, though we're often discouraged to talk about it or debate it at the UN, and knowledge that Israel has the bomb has played a huge part in how Arab states conduct their dealings with Israel.

I think if Iran managed to make a nuclear weapon the main concern wouldn't be the possibility of a Iranian nuclear strike on Israel but the start of a nuclear race in the unstable middle east, which is dangerous

 

[STURM]

I think if Iran managed to make a nuclear weapon the main concern wouldn't be the possibility of a Iranian nuclear strike on Israel but the start of a nuclear race in the unstable middle east, which is dangerous

This is an arguement that we constantly hear about and one that is used by the U.S. as an excuse for possible strikes on Iran. Which Arab country apart from Saudi Arabia can afford the billions needed to create a bomb in the first place? As long as Saudi Arabia is under the protective umbrella of the U.S. military, as are the Gulf States, why would they want the bomb and assuming they did, who would provide the technology - certainly not Pakistan as 'help' from the Khan network is no longer available. North Korea is a possibility but the chances of Uncle Sam not finding out about it and not taking steps to prevent it by pressuring the Saudis or taking other measures such as intercepting the aircraft or vessels involved are almost nil.

As to 'concerns', it really depends on who you ask as different countries have different concerns. Israel's main concern is that it does not want to lose its nuclear monopoly [who would?] as that this would effect the way it handles its neighbours in the future. The Gulf states are worried for different reasons, as some have disputes with Iran and have problems with the Shias who look to Iran for inspiration and protection. Having a nuke will stengthen Iran's hand in its dealing with the Sunni Arab states and this is what worries Gulf States.