The Coming War with Iran

Sp5

 
Watch the media coverage of the Iran nuclear talks "deadline" over the next week. I predict a dramatic declared failure by Kerry and the Europeans and blaming of Iran for not totally capitulating. Facts will be false framed, like the "tons" of "enriched uranium" Iran allegedly has.

I think war with Iran is coming in some form, it may be more in the Libya or Syria style than the Iraq style. This is based on watching events and propaganda tells over the last few years, along with a little inside information.

One tell is the US Department of Justice's protection of an alleged non-profit group "United Against Nuclear Iran" in a civil lawsuit. http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/...st-anti-iran-group-feds-say-mums-the-word.htm

Why is the US Government declaring a state secrets privilege in a lawsuit in which it is not a party?

Neocon war drums are beating:

National Review: Don't Extend the Iran Talks

"Regime change" in Iran is a goal of the "deep state" and will be pursued whether Obama, Hillary or Jeb Bush is president. Jim Webb or Rand Paul, maybe not.

I am against it, because it has the signs of being a Waterloo for the USA and NATO. The Iranians will not be easy to take down.
 

Chaos

Pelican
Gold Member
Well I hope not.
I developed quite strong feelings for Iran and the Persian people during my time there.
The last thing that country need is a war with US.

It's two years since I was there, but at that time people often expressed their fear of a war with Israel.

I hope everyone chill out.
 
It is impossible for a war when the financial system is on the verge of a serious crisis with Japan having the capability to take everone down with them in light of Abenomics. Europe has no appetite as they chug along hoping to inject growth.

USA has a myriad of problems and quite frankly are bogged down picking fights with everyone ranging from Russia to a rag tag bunch of Islamist jihadists.

Your last point is excellent. They said then when Americans invaded Iraq the Iranians closely watched everything and their entire defense system is built to counter western strengths. You can also place a solid bet that any direct intervention will bring Hizballah to the party. Not going to be pretty at all.

It will probably never go beyond sanctions and intelligence warfare.
 

Sp5

 
zidhai89 said:
It is impossible for a war when the financial system is on the verge of a serious crisis with Japan having the capability to take everone down with them in light of Abenomics. Europe has no appetite as they chug along hoping to inject growth.

USA has a myriad of problems and quite frankly are bogged down picking fights with everyone ranging from Russia to a rag tag bunch of Islamist jihadists.

Your last point is excellent. They said then when Americans invaded Iraq the Iranians closely watched everything and their entire defense system is built to counter western strengths. You can also place a solid bet that any direct intervention will bring Hizballah to the party. Not going to be pretty at all.

It will probably never go beyond sanctions and intelligence warfare.
Ah, I left out a point. The whole Syria regime-change thing is to take out an ally of Iran and isolate and destroy Hezbollah before attacking Iran.

Syria is just prepping for Iran.
 

Bolly

Pelican
Who wants war with Iran? Why the Israelis and the Saudis of course. The cancers of American foreign policy. It always amazes me how the geopolitical narrative we're fed coupled with our actions in the Arab/Persian world, perfectly matches what Bin Laden's goals were. Iran is last on the list.

I smell a rat.
 
1. There will be no war with Iran, because it does not make strategic sense to do so (no possibility of occupation, no possibility of doing anything more than delaying Iranian nuclear efforts, 100% probability of severe retaliation, and it would ironically reinforce the case for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons).
2. Iran will get a nuclear weapon, because it makes strategic sense to do so (if it isn't obvious why, consider the example of Ukraine, and how different its situation would be if it hadn't given up its nukes).
3. Iran would not use any limited nuclear arsenal in a first strike, it would face obliteration.
4. Iran would not give a nuclear weapon to a 3rd party for use in a terrorist attack, as it is rather easy to look at characteristics of a nuclear detonation and determine origin, and it would face obliteration.
5. What's really happening? Israel is a paranoid security state. It wants to be able to dictate the terms of political issues via overwhelming military force, and the ultimate threat of its nuclear arsenal. A nuclear armed Iran, which would not be subject to Israel's bullying, would afford considerable political strength and physical protection to Hizbollah, Hamas, Palestinians, etc.
 
Yes, let's have a war with Iran. Because more destabilizing influences to this region is what the world really needs. :tard:

As much as I hate to say it, a strong Iran is good for the Middle East. They are a stabilizing power, especially when surrounded on all sides by crazy. Let them saber rattle if it makes them feel powerful. Ultimately they are more use to the West strong, keeping the rest of the region from devolving into chaos.
 

Andy_B

Kingfisher
Gold Member
There's no war with Iran coming. We didn't even go into Syria (against Assad I mean). If we won't even attack an Iranian proxy, what are the odds we attack Iran proper?
 
Rutting Elephant said:
How would war with Iran not entail war with Russia?
Because Russia and Iran are not best friends, but strategic partners on some issues at best. Putin's the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend-logic may in this moment push him more toward Tehran, but I don't see why Russia would side with Iran in case of war. They have nothing to gain in that scenario, and the Persian lands are not within Russia's traditional sphere of influence.

I don't believe the US or Israel will eventually attack Iran. The Americans don't want it, the IDF is not capable to do it.
 

Vaun

Hummingbird
Gold Member
A war with Iran is a war with Russia. This is saber rattling, especially lately given Russia's aggressive patrols in international waters. Neo cons are driven by one thing, corporate interests, and they couch it in patriotism that Foxnews watchers buy hook, line and sinker.
 

Foolsgo1d

Peacock
Yet more reason why there should be actual checks on power of politicians and their backers. The man and woman in the street do not go to war with countries such as Syria, Iran, Russia and the like. Only paranoid profit-driven bastards in power do.

In order for normal folk to get behind and men to join up they need to frighten the populace into recognising some threat to their lives.

It doesn't help that fanatical Jihad warriors make it easier to swallow by their endless bloodlust. All they have to do is link Iran with some form of Jihad and the West "wins".
 

Sonsowey

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Iran is right between Iraq and Afghanistan. Both of their neighbors have been completely destroyed by chaos following U.S. invasion. They must be terrified of the U.S. invading, considering we have been talking about it openly for around ten years now.

Obviously these wars do not help anyone. Libya is in chaos. Syria is in chaos. Iraq and Afghanistan are in chaos. All of these countries are without doubt far worse off than before the U.S. decided to invade or bomb.

Iran right now is a peaceful country. Their murder rate is about equal with the U.S. they have a pretty high HDI for their region. Their government is a lot more "democratic" and has lot more respect for human rights than, say, Saudi Arabia.

Yet most Americans I talk to see to think Iranians are basically savages living in mud huts. My impression is that they are by far the best country in the region for women's rights and generally being free to do as you will.

We seem pretty determined to destroy them though. Very sad. I do not know if they are truly building nuclear weapons, but if so, it seems only logical for them to want to defend themselves after watching what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.

Surely they have noted that North Korea has not been "liberated".
 

Sp5

 
VolandoVengoVolandoVoy said:
1. There will be no war with Iran, because it does not make strategic sense to do so (no possibility of occupation, no possibility of doing anything more than delaying Iranian nuclear efforts, 100% probability of severe retaliation, and it would ironically reinforce the case for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons).
2. Iran will get a nuclear weapon, because it makes strategic sense to do so (if it isn't obvious why, consider the example of Ukraine, and how different its situation would be if it hadn't given up its nukes).
3. Iran would not use any limited nuclear arsenal in a first strike, it would face obliteration.
4. Iran would not give a nuclear weapon to a 3rd party for use in a terrorist attack, as it is rather easy to look at characteristics of a nuclear detonation and determine origin, and it would face obliteration.
5. What's really happening? Israel is a paranoid security state. It wants to be able to dictate the terms of political issues via overwhelming military force, and the ultimate threat of its nuclear arsenal. A nuclear armed Iran, which would not be subject to Israel's bullying, would afford considerable political strength and physical protection to Hizbollah, Hamas, Palestinians, etc.
This is a long game being played. What is the "strategic sense" behind trying to replace the Assad government in Syria? Why are the USA, NATO Europe, the Israelis, Saudis and Qataris trying to get rid of Assad?

Syria under the Assads was a military ally of the USA during Desert Storm, and an intelligence / torture / rendition ally after 9/11. Please don't give me "human rights" as a reason. There was more personal freedom under Assad than in Saudi Arabia and about as much political freedom. Plus, as I said, we were sending people to Syria to be tortured there.

Even though supporting the rebels against Assad has resulted in a disaster with ISIS in Syria and Iraq, the USA is still supporting the rebels. WTF and why? You are presuming rational conduct in pursuit of the national interest. I say these fuckers are not rational.

What was the "strategic sense" behind upsetting a reasonable modus vivendi with an elected president in the Ukraine and fomenting a revolution against him?

I suppose there was some reason to get rid of Ghaddafi, given his record, but it's questionable given the outcome.

These power grabs have resulted in tens of thousands of deaths. All during Obama's term.

I predict a longer, more subtle campaign than with Iraq, Libya or Syria. The talks will fail, there will be no deal. There will be more pressure in Assad, taking him out and isolating Hezbollah is a predicate to any campaign against Iran.

There will be tougher sanctions against Iran, the west and the gulf will try to cut them off from the rest of the world. Then there will be an internal crisis precipitated in Iran, with the excitement of demonstrations against the government like in the time of the "Greens." Bombing will be in the mix eventually.

The goal is regime change, not stopping the nuclear program.
 
Rutting Elephant said:
Iran is full of heroin addicts. It is possible that US intel has been waging war quietly there for many years.
Meth has gotten big there too. There are plenty of elite hotties in the capital that like to party. They are allowed to do whatever they want as long as their parents stick to money and don't lose out on the behind the scenes Game of Thrones battle for political issues.


 

xpatplayer

Kingfisher
America is already waging economic war against Iran. The sanctions really hurt the economy. America is trying hard to topple one Iranian ally (Syria) and is already on the way to proxy war with another (Russia).

I predict that the Balochis and KEM will get billions of dollars of aid to amp up their campaign. America wants nothing less than the destruction of a powerful state which acts in its own rational interests and follows its own principles, unlike the other corrupt American satellite states in the Middle East.
 
Top