Why Iran should be worried!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mardini

New Member
Out of all the opinions that has been written on this thread, a big congrats needs to be forwarded to you for thinking the best possible solution for Israel if they decide to go about it with aircraft.:)
you all speak as if it is a jungle we are living in...try and think about the consequences for a minute, do you really think the world would be a better place if Israel pulls such an idiotic stunt? the attack on Osirak in Iraq and the political situation at that time, and the one today is totally different from now, the player is totally differrent. Israel and the west have everything to lose, the iranian regime has nothing. Having nukes or not, that doesn't allow anyone to just go and bomb another, would this have been you oppinion if Iran or an arabic country at that time had bombed Dimona nuce plant in Israel, mind you with nukes? at least do not have a double standard! I am sure some of you will probably say that the Iranian president has threatened Israel with destruction, now this is totally political propaganda in which he hopes to find some cheap support in the muslim/arabic world by trying to woo popular view, because his regime is under so much pressure. The other thing is that people tend to forget that Israel is the only nuclear power in the whole region! and for a country of barely 6 mio people having +200 nukes and plenty of other WMD, and have previously threatened to use them against its neighbours, even the ones whom they signed peace treaties with, is by my oppinion something to worry about, anyway some of your enthusiasm to protect little Israel will most likely be felt just outside our home doors here in the west if Israel goes on with this stunt, as the middle east and the muslim and arab world would be on fire, and since someone has to pay for this guess who that someone will be?
Disclaimer: (this is necessary today or else I will be accused of this and that)
I do not support or in any way like the iranian or any other middle eastern regime, this is totally viewed from a "action-reaction" point of view, and I do not accept anykind of idiotic acts of aggression from any part what so ever.
 

Mardini

New Member
hey ive been reading some previous posts and there has been talk that if iran gets nukes there will be a military imbalance in the region, what I want to know is that how is that possible? Keeping in mind iran's rival is israel and israel has nukes wouldn't the militarly imbalance be balanced if iran also had nukes?:confused:
because israel has the right to exist and defend itself and everybody else haven't.. the sad truth today ;)
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
How come the issue of Iran having nukes is made to an issue of Israel having nukes... This is about imbalance and how to manage it.

Iran is not trying to get nukes to counter Israel, but to dominate the other Gulf countries - Israel is a strwman - but you can legitimise anything in the ME if it is to "counter Israel". And soon Saudi Arabia and Egypt will have nukes. It's just not a good idea.

The only right to nukes that exist is if you can either hide or defend you're developing them. Iran has failed at the former and is likely to fail at the latter.

Lastly, the only two reasons there could be for a US ground troops invasion would be
  • Khuzestan a tiny little strip of land next to Basra, populated by up to 4 million Shia Arabs, not Persians, that contains most of the Iranian oil. Take that away and you have removed the flow of oil money to the Irainian regime (and IIRC oil is something like 30% of GDP and in practice all the money available for the regime - kills money for nukes and proxy wars).

  • Hit & run of nuclear sites - ie no permancy.

Not that I am advocating it - just pointing out the only reasons I can see for a ground war. And neither of these require an occupation of 95% of Iran as there is no need to do that.
 

contedicavour

New Member
In order to prevent this thread from becoming political or too simplistic (the "just kick their ass" idiocy), may I suggest we focus on :

> which weapons systems stand a chance of destroying deeply buried Iranian nuclear installations ? Leaving aside tactical nuclear weapons, which "bunker busters" would be powerful enough to ensure high chances of destruction ?

> what sort of ATBM shield could be put around Iran in order to maximise chances of destroying whatever missile (with potential nuclear warheads) Iran could launch ? I see USN Aegis ships in the Gulf, PAC3 in Turkey and why not Afghanistan and Iraq... but would that be enough ? I doubt it.

cheers
 

Mardini

New Member
How come the issue of Iran having nukes is made to an issue of Israel having nukes... This is about imbalance and how to manage it.

Because that is the exact question any middle easterner would ask you as the first, how come israel is allowed and we are not, yes it is an imbalance that the only country down there that is allowed to have nukes is Israel, I am not saying it is a good idea to supply the iranian regime with nukes, I am challenging the logic behind why someone is allowed while all the others are not, where were everybody when it came out that israel is producing nukes?? all I hear now is bomb iran destroy iran make tehran a big whole, nuke em', that is exactly the kind of behavior and double standard that are creating enemys and terrorists to the west, people downthere can't understand why the west (mostly america) is so concerned with israel safety who are roughly 6 mio people while not giving a damn about 300 mio of the region, that kind of imbalance and doublestandard is very dangerous, it is for them as jews/israelis are considered more worth in terms of humans than them, and untill that is changed there will be no peace and more war

Iran is not trying to get nukes to counter Israel, but to dominate the other Gulf countries - Israel is a strwman - but you can legitimise anything in the ME if it is to "counter Israel". And soon Saudi Arabia and Egypt will have nukes. It's just not a good idea.

that is the partial truth, israel is still iran's number one enemy, down the line you find saudi arabia the gulf states etc. Either all countries are allowed to develop and produce nukes or no one! that is the only thing people would understand, I therefore suggest the UN to step in and dismantle the Israeli nuclear program and whatever WMD's they have before requiring the same from its neighbours. Anything else will not work.. as you can't have a double standard and expect people to comply, det er simpel logik


The only right to nukes that exist is if you can either hide or defend you're developing them. Iran has failed at the former and is likely to fail at the latter.

Lastly, the only two reasons there could be for a US ground troops invasion would be
  • Khuzestan a tiny little strip of land next to Basra, populated by up to 4 million Shia Arabs, not Persians, that contains most of the Iranian oil. Take that away and you have removed the flow of oil money to the Irainian regime (and IIRC oil is something like 30% of GDP and in practice all the money available for the regime - kills money for nukes and proxy wars).

    it's way more complicated than that, you wouldn't know if there would be an uprising against US presence, and as things are going in Iraq, that wouldn't at all be a good scenario for the americans, furthermore Iran is well aware of that kind of scenario and believe me they wouldn't sit down and say "heck we lost all that, and there is nothing to do" they will burn the entire area and the people there down
  • Hit & run of nuclear sites - ie no permancy.

Not that I am advocating it - just pointing out the only reasons I can see for a ground war. And neither of these require an occupation of 95% of Iran as there is no need to do that.
This is the final reply from me in regards of politics, sorry guys, let's keep it simple let's keep it military

I think an invasion is the most dangerous thing to do, the best would be delivery of cruise missiles by submarines as they would be harder to hit back and a defensive scenario in regards of any response from the iranians, as an invasion would definitely wake up the nationalistic and religious feelings among iranians, the best thing would be a diplomatic solution
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
This is the final reply from me in regards of politics, sorry guys, let's keep it simple let's keep it military
Let's keep it that what way. On the viability of the Khuzestan option:

it's way more complicated than that, you wouldn't know if there would be an uprising against US presence, and as things are going in Iraq, that wouldn't at all be a good scenario for the americans, furthermore Iran is well aware of that kind of scenario and believe me they wouldn't sit down and say "heck we lost all that, and there is nothing to do" they will burn the entire area and the people there down
What I was pointing out is that Khuzestan is no nation building op. No mingling with the civilians, peacekeeping, democratic elections, etc. Just taking over the oil fields and infrastructure, to cut of oil revenue to the Iranian regime. Different objective than Iraq.

The Shia Arabs in Khuzestan don't think they get their share of the wealth...

Iran scorching their own earth - well, that won't bring the oil profits back.
 

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
In order to prevent this thread from becoming political or too simplistic (the "just kick their ass" idiocy), may I suggest we focus on :

> which weapons systems stand a chance of destroying deeply buried Iranian nuclear installations ? Leaving aside tactical nuclear weapons, which "bunker busters" would be powerful enough to ensure high chances of destruction ?

> what sort of ATBM shield could be put around Iran in order to maximise chances of destroying whatever missile (with potential nuclear warheads) Iran could launch ? I see USN Aegis ships in the Gulf, PAC3 in Turkey and why not Afghanistan and Iraq... but would that be enough ? I doubt it.

cheers
Some answers:

Bunker Busters*-
  • B61-11**
  • GBU-28
  • SDB
  • EGBU-28
  • Classified***
Missile Defense-
  • AEGIS TMD
  • Patriot SAMs
  • SA-10
  • Arrow
  • Classified****

*There is the possibility of deliberate misinformation on effectiveness of conventional earth penetrating weapons

**Sorry to mention that weapon but it's a real possibility

***Just like ODS, a classified program similar to how GBU-28 could have emergency operational capability. No idea what it is but we could find out

****In the missile defense arena we could see an experimental anti-missile system used


FYI-
Iran recently purchased ~30 Tor-M1 point defense systems. This is significant because the TOR-M1 is designed to defend against PGMs and aircraft. 30 of them aren't enough to defend much of Iran suggesting their use is intended for defense of critical infrastructure and perhaps leadership. This fits in with the speculation of 3 to 5 critical nodes in the Iranian Nuclear program and about right for the magnitude of an independent IDF/AF strike covering such extreme distances. This seriously complicates any IDF/AF conventional operation and lends credibility to the theory that a strike would likely have to involve considerable US/Coalition help to ensure the mass necessary for success.

Iran is aware of the Israeli talent for long range precision strike and have organized it's defense accordingly.



DA
 

Bawbel

New Member
Iran Iraq Syria Israel Turkey Afghanastan and ?

First of all Iraq was thought to be mighty, but after engaging the US for an hour they realized it was suicide and retreated. Iran is more powerful, but the US has the ability for a quick massive strike that could eliminate all threat of Iran's military except the chemical weapons. Iran's missiles are carrying chemical and biological loads. It is also possible Iran has a few "dirty bombs".

The likely scenario is to have Israel bomb the nuclear areas and the leadership. The people of Iran are on the verge of a revolution. The young Iranian population clashes with the old hardliner government. Iran is on the verge of being a free country. US does not want to destroy relations with the young Iranian population and they will if they go in bombing like they did in Iraq.

The Patriot missiles are there strictly as a precautionary measure. But the US will not hit Iran first, it is not in there best interest. And Iran will not hit the US, because they know it will be suicide.

If the US waits for the next Iranian generation they will have a friendly Iran.
 

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
First of all Iraq was thought to be mighty, but after engaging the US for an hour they realized it was suicide and retreated. Iran is more powerful, but the US has the ability for a quick massive strike that could eliminate all threat of Iran's military except the chemical weapons. Iran's missiles are carrying chemical and biological loads. It is also possible Iran has a few "dirty bombs".

The likely scenario is to have Israel bomb the nuclear areas and the leadership. The people of Iran are on the verge of a revolution. The young Iranian population clashes with the old hardliner government. Iran is on the verge of being a free country. US does not want to destroy relations with the young Iranian population and they will if they go in bombing like they did in Iraq.

The Patriot missiles are there strictly as a precautionary measure. But the US will not hit Iran first, it is not in there best interest. And Iran will not hit the US, because they know it will be suicide.

If the US waits for the next Iranian generation they will have a friendly Iran.
Not sure I see the "revolution" model being employed here. Historically, when internal pressure has been used to overthrow unfriendly governments, there has been the luxury of time. In this case, Iran is suspected to be within low single digit years of attaining nuclear weapons capability. This puts serious temporal challenges on organizing internal opposition to the government.

Another thing is that the history of revolutions overthrowing oppressive governments in modern times is not a good one. Castro still rules Cuba, Kim Rules Korea and had the coalition not acted in Iraq. Saddam would still rule that nation. The problem with oppressive governments in total control is that they really are in total control and have the means to stomp out dissent violently!

Also, the problems don't necessarily end there in this case. In 1991 Saddam carried out a scorched earth policy. Fortunately though, he didn't have nuclear weapons and he always knew he had the option of surrender which he took when his survival was in question. In short, there is not telling how things will go.

The only insurance the US/coalition and Israel has is a massive strike designed to eliminate Iran as a traditional, catastrophic and disruptive threat. That would leave only the asymmetric threat which can be contained to Iran proper mostly as Iraq demonstrates. If necessary the magnitude of the strike could be expanded to include the leadership.


DA
 

Bawbel

New Member
Culture Revolution

Not sure I see the "revolution" model ...
DA
Iran's younger generation is getting a very well education. The revolution is one of the mind. The revolution manifests outward physically, but it is rather of understanding life and this comes from education. And it does take time, probably at least 40 years.

The recent government must be "taken out". If Israel takes out only the nuclear facilities the present leadership will be left with much arsenal to use. This cannot happen. Either US and Israel do one massive strike and destroy Iran's arsenal or Israel takes out nuclear facilities and leadership.

Iran must sustain a force in the Mid-East for region stabilization.
 

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Iran's younger generation is getting a very well education. The revolution is one of the mind. The revolution manifests outward physically, but it is rather of understanding life and this comes from education. And it does take time, probably at least 40 years.

The recent government must be "taken out". If Israel takes out only the nuclear facilities the present leadership will be left with much arsenal to use. This cannot happen. Either US and Israel do one massive strike and destroy Iran's arsenal or Israel takes out nuclear facilities and leadership.

Iran must sustain a force in the Mid-East for region stabilization.
I'm not sure I'm following you. In your previous post you said the US should wait? In this one you suggest war?

DA
 

Bawbel

New Member
I'm not sure I'm following you. In your previous post you said the US should wait? In this one you suggest war?

DA
Either US and Israel do one massive strike and destroy Iran's arsenal or Israel takes out nuclear facilities and leadership.

I am saying US does not want to. If Israel only destroys the nuclear facilities then the Iran's leadership will use what they can for retaliation. I am saying Israel has takeout the leadership.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
How often this worked?
And how do you want to get the whole leading class in one strike?
 

pounce

New Member
Israel isn't the enemy

Mardini wrote;
“That is the partial truth, Israel is still Iran’s number one enemy, down the line you find Saudi Arabia the gulf states etc. Either all countries are allowed to develop and produce nukes or no one! that is the only thing people would understand, I therefore suggest the UN to step in and dismantle the Israeli nuclear program and whatever WMD's they have before requiring the same from its neighbours. Anything else will not work.. As you can't have a double standard and expect people to comply.”

Good evening. (Or should that be good morning?) If you kind gentlemen don’t mind. I would appreciate the chance to put my pennies worth on the table;

To fully appreciate the situation in the Gulf regions we have to look at History. I don’t just mean looking at the last 100 years. (American, British and Russian involvement) I don’t refer to the past 1000. I actually refer to the great schism of Islam in which Ali took his supporters away and founded Shia Islam.
1) Iran is predominantly Shia Islam.
2) It is surrounded by Sunni Islamic countries.
3) Contrary to this vision of Islamic brotherhood. Shia and Sunni Islam combine like Oil and water.
4) When Saddam invaded Iran, he did so with the full support of almost every Islamic country in the world. (Sunni Muslim countries at that)
5) Iran does not forget.
6) After making her peace with Iraq, she embarked on a weapons procurement program to ensure that she would never be threatened (never mind invaded again by the neighbours)
7) This in turn has set in motion an Arms race in the region. Where the countries now fear Iranian involvement in their backyard for them backing Saddam. As much as these countries openly hate the US. They know it is the only country willing to stand in their corner in a fight. (The EU would just procrastinate on what to do for 3 years)
8) Have a look at all the recent arms purchases in the region by the Sunni countries. In fact while the media make a song and dance about Iranian Ballistic missiles. Nobody seems to wish to mention the very same thing sitting in SA aimed at Iran.
9) In order to keep the Sunni Muslims hopping on the wrong foot. Iran is engaged in hopefully setting up another Shia enclave in the Lebanon. She has used the excuse of fighting the great evil (Israel) in which to placate the locals from recognising the fact that they aren’t in the region to defend them. No their plan is to rule. Hezbollah set in motion the attack on Israel last year in which to ensure that a devastating attack on Lebanon would ensure that public support would push aside the legitimate government and put in place a proxy of Tehran’s.
10) This has now been exemplified by how Hezbollah is currently trying to oust the present incumbent in Beruit. How Saudi Arabia and the Gulf nations are openly supporting the government of Lebanon.
11) Unfortunately Iran has (in its eyes) a genuine reason to fear attack. Surrounded by Iraq and Afghanistan. And by Sunni Islam. The mullahs in Tehran fear that what Saddam failed to do for the Gulf nations. The US will accomplish.

In a nutshell Israel isn’t the enemy that Iran makes out. But rather Israel is the smokescreen used by Tehran in which to blind the regions Sunni Muslims to what they are really up to. (That may explain why Tehran’s missiles can reach every Arab capital. Have a look)
There I’ve had my pennies worth. Thank you.
 
Either US and Israel do one massive strike and destroy Iran's arsenal or Israel takes out nuclear facilities and leadership.

I am saying US does not want to. If Israel only destroys the nuclear facilities then the Iran's leadership will use what they can for retaliation. I am saying Israel has takeout the leadership.
You would need the intel. on the leadership whereabouts which would be very difficult in a country like Iran. We have seen from the Iraq and Lebanon wars, its almost impossible to take out leadership with airstrikes.
 
Last edited:

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
You would need the intel. on the leadership whereabouts which would be very difficult in a country like Iran. We have seen from the Iraq and Lebanon wars, its almost impossible to take out leadership with airstrikes.

It's more an issue of politics than actual ability to do it. Typically, US/Coalition forces give advanced warning of strikes in the hope that the potential enemy backs down. During this pre-conflict phase, the enemy goes underground and becomes an extremely difficult target. Again, this is necessitated by our desire to be perceived as behaving "fairly". Also, todays PGMs require too much time to reach most time sensitive targets in areas where we don't have persistent loiter capability for whatever reason. Things are changing though.

Anybody familiar with the Prompt Global Strike concept knows that the United States fully appreciates the urgency of a time critical response and if developing solutions that should make any leadership target cringe. Solutions like the Conventional Trident, FALCON and whatever comes from the X-51 program. Soon the statement, "nowhere to run to, nowhere to hide" will be true.

For now though, we have to rely on systems that would give hours of warning in most cases. I imagine the F-22 could reduce these times if its in theater but due to its size and persistence, its limited.

Fortunately though, we do have "soft kill" methods to remove the leadership from the decision making cycle in some cases.


DA
 

Bawbel

New Member
You would need the intel. on the leadership whereabouts which would be very difficult in a country like Iran. We have seen from the Iraq and Lebanon, its almost impossible to take out leadership with airstrikes.
Yes very difficult (virtually impossible with air strikes) to take out leadership. Iraq is a good example. And you can bet the Iran leadership is 500ft in the earth somewhere.

The post three up makes a very good understanding of the religious factions in the area and how the surrounding Arab nations would like nothing better than to wipe out Iran. This is going on in Iraq.

So what is left? Hit the nuclear facilities and wait for Iran's reaction? It usually is a scenario that nobody can guess.

Just In "Iran’s strongman loses grip as ayatollah offers nuclear deal"
IRAN’S supreme leader is considering a change of policy on the country’s nuclear programme in an effort to defuse growing tension with the West, according to senior sources in Tehran.

Alarmed by mounting US pressure and United Nations sanctions, officials close to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei favour the appointment of a more moderate team for international negotiations on the supervision of its nuclear facilities.

The move would be a snub to the bellicose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose threats to destroy Israel have left Iran increasingly isolated and facing a serious economic downturn.

Tehran sources said the impetus for a policy switch was coming from Khamenei, who has ultimate power over Iran’s foreign policy, security and armed forces.

Khamenei is said to believe that Washington’s aim is not only to halt Iran’s nuclear programme but to overthrow the regime.

He also considers the national interest is being undermined by an inexperienced president whose rhetoric is unnecessarily inflammatory.
 
Last edited:

Mardini

New Member
First of all Iraq was thought to be mighty, but after engaging the US for an hour they realized it was suicide and retreated. Iran is more powerful, but the US has the ability for a quick massive strike that could eliminate all threat of Iran's military except the chemical weapons. Iran's missiles are carrying chemical and biological loads. It is also possible Iran has a few "dirty bombs".

I am not sure you are right on this one, it took well beyond a week for the US army to enter Um qassar ( a very small port town) which in no way reflects your "one hour engagement", it is commonly known that the sudden disappearance of the Iraqi army was due to the US agents buying out surrender from iraqi army leadership before the invasion, a major strike would not eliminate all threat of iran's, that's just wishful thinking, even with the present operations in Iraq and afghanistan the US army is on the verge of collapse as an american general said, you expect a 70 million huge country like Iran would be a walk in the park? "iran's missiles are carrying chemical and biological loads?" the same was said about saddam, know don' just spit out things as if they were a fact

The likely scenario is to have Israel bomb the nuclear areas and the leadership. The people of Iran are on the verge of a revolution. The young Iranian population clashes with the old hardliner government. Iran is on the verge of being a free country. US does not want to destroy relations with the young Iranian population and they will if they go in bombing like they did in Iraq.

With all respect you don't seem to know much about the Mid east or the iranians, the same was said about the shiites in iraq, that they would welcome the americans with flowers, now did that happen? the thing about iranians and I speak from a point of knowledge since I am engaged to one and I have political discussions with a lot of iranians even the most hardcore anti-regime exile ones, and the vast majority said they would love to see the regime disappear today before tomorrow, but they were fully aware of that any US/israeli attack would not be a "liberation" attempt but merely a case of eliminating the threat that Iran constitutes to Israel and US interests, they said they themselves want to remove the mullah regime, and they believed that the majority of the iranian people would stand against such acts and defend iran

The Patriot missiles are there strictly as a precautionary measure. But the US will not hit Iran first, it is not in there best interest. And Iran will not hit the US, because they know it will be suicide.

If the US waits for the next Iranian generation they will have a friendly Iran.
this solely relies on the policy the US will wage in the area. If they do it good, then maybe if they do it bad as they are doing know, they will have a worse generation than know....
 

Rich

Member
IRAN’S supreme leader is considering a change of policy
Read the "Diploma-Language" in that and try to understand the place the President actually has in this Theocratic Dictatorship. All that Ahmadinejad has been saying "is", and "has been", the official policy of the Theocratic leadership of Iran. The Office of the President was created, and then filled, in order to be a lightening rod for limited dissent and media criticism. In other words instead of allowing the people to get pissed off at the Mullahs, who actually hold the power, they instead deflect their anger by creating a Presidential office and blaming him.

Iran’s strongman loses grip as ayatollah offers nuclear deal
Ahmadinejad is not a "strongman". He is a puppet! How many times do I have to tell people that? He and the Mullahs are drinking tea together every night plotting their next misinformation and divide and conquer move.

"Considering a change of Policy"? Oh that's beautiful! These aren't your average "ignorant of the west" Mullahs. They know they need to divide and conquer diplomatically useing the tool of Language. Those four words should gain them 4 to 6 months in their march to the bomb and should cause further division in the west. Adolf Hitler did a lot of "considering" between 1936-1939 as well, with each "consideration" giving him about 6 months leeway.

And despite the millions of lessons that lie in the study of history we still dont learn do we? Just look at the millions of intelligent people who are still manipulated by propaganda and dogma. I keep telling my fellow Yanks not to underestimate these Iranians. They are not to be confused with Arabs and wont make the same mistakes. They are children of the East, not the middle east, which makes them subtle and patient.

They may not understand modern war but I bet they have read Sun Tzu and to understand what they are doing, thinking, and saying, you have to delve underneath the obvious.
 

Mardini

New Member
Mardini wrote;
“That is the partial truth, Israel is still Iran’s number one enemy, down the line you find Saudi Arabia the gulf states etc. Either all countries are allowed to develop and produce nukes or no one! that is the only thing people would understand, I therefore suggest the UN to step in and dismantle the Israeli nuclear program and whatever WMD's they have before requiring the same from its neighbours. Anything else will not work.. As you can't have a double standard and expect people to comply.”

Good evening. (Or should that be good morning?) If you kind gentlemen don’t mind. I would appreciate the chance to put my pennies worth on the table;

To fully appreciate the situation in the Gulf regions we have to look at History. I don’t just mean looking at the last 100 years. (American, British and Russian involvement) I don’t refer to the past 1000. I actually refer to the great schism of Islam in which Ali took his supporters away and founded Shia Islam.
1) Iran is predominantly Shia Islam.
2) It is surrounded by Sunni Islamic countries.
3) Contrary to this vision of Islamic brotherhood. Shia and Sunni Islam combine like Oil and water.
4) When Saddam invaded Iran, he did so with the full support of almost every Islamic country in the world. (Sunni Muslim countries at that)
5) Iran does not forget.
6) After making her peace with Iraq, she embarked on a weapons procurement program to ensure that she would never be threatened (never mind invaded again by the neighbours)
7) This in turn has set in motion an Arms race in the region. Where the countries now fear Iranian involvement in their backyard for them backing Saddam. As much as these countries openly hate the US. They know it is the only country willing to stand in their corner in a fight. (The EU would just procrastinate on what to do for 3 years)
8) Have a look at all the recent arms purchases in the region by the Sunni countries. In fact while the media make a song and dance about Iranian Ballistic missiles. Nobody seems to wish to mention the very same thing sitting in SA aimed at Iran.
9) In order to keep the Sunni Muslims hopping on the wrong foot. Iran is engaged in hopefully setting up another Shia enclave in the Lebanon. She has used the excuse of fighting the great evil (Israel) in which to placate the locals from recognising the fact that they aren’t in the region to defend them. No their plan is to rule. Hezbollah set in motion the attack on Israel last year in which to ensure that a devastating attack on Lebanon would ensure that public support would push aside the legitimate government and put in place a proxy of Tehran’s.
10) This has now been exemplified by how Hezbollah is currently trying to oust the present incumbent in Beruit. How Saudi Arabia and the Gulf nations are openly supporting the government of Lebanon.
11) Unfortunately Iran has (in its eyes) a genuine reason to fear attack. Surrounded by Iraq and Afghanistan. And by Sunni Islam. The mullahs in Tehran fear that what Saddam failed to do for the Gulf nations. The US will accomplish.

In a nutshell Israel isn’t the enemy that Iran makes out. But rather Israel is the smokescreen used by Tehran in which to blind the regions Sunni Muslims to what they are really up to. (That may explain why Tehran’s missiles can reach every Arab capital. Have a look)
There I’ve had my pennies worth. Thank you.
Good job sir
But I must remind you that it was not Ali who founded Shia Islam, rather it was his supporters who thought that the leadership of Islam should be passed through descendants of the Profet's (muhammed) line of blood.

Yes there is indeed huge problems among Sunni - Shia muslims, but you have to understand the typical Mid east and arabic mentality which is "my brother and I, against my cousin, and my cousin and I, against the stranger" which in plain english would be an alliance against the enemy.

Yes the whole thing is about the spreading of the shiite influence in the muslim world. That is mainly why saddam went to war incl. the fact that there was a genuine fear throughout the western world and among the corrupt rulers in the mid east of a muslim revolution that would counter western interests in the region , and yet again create the feared muslim khalifat/empire, and topple these puppet and dictatorial rulers whose only goal is to stay in power. But the hate for israel is well rooted in the shiite community, and they are attempting to lead that fight so they can show the entire muslim world that it is the shiites that are battling and winning this war and not the lazy incompetent sunnis, and that the shiite islam is the true sect of islam. So the shiites are winning the hearts of muslims everywhere and since numerous countries in the gulf region are of shiite majority they fear there will be a shift in these countries from the sunni camp to the shiite camp. So I regard Israel not being merely a smoke screen but the true #1 enemy of the clergyship in iran since they constitue the true danger, while SA and the rest can be held back by popular belief as SA is not capable and will not start a major war against iran, and the small fragile gulf countries try to keep a good mood among their shiite populations
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top