US-Iran II

Discussion in 'International News' started by BenReilly, Jan 14, 2007.

  1. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    No doubt. Nor would Ahmadinejad dispute your statement. His point was that the US, realizing that it doesn't have any good military options, will not start a war that would be quite costly to it. In response, one of the reporters asked if Bush might not start such a war regardless, just to run from his problems in Iraq? Ahmadinejad didn't feel he would, and basically argued that Iran was well positioned to know if the US was truly preparing for a war well in advance.

    The one specific point he made on this issue was that the US navy would basically have to first get out of the Persian Gulf if the US ever wanted to start a war. That US naval warships would be sitting ducks where they are now.
     
  2. sebakoole

    sebakoole New Member

    Jul 11, 2002
    The USS Eisenhower is currently deployed to the region and was moved to the coast of Somalia for the operation a few weeks ago. I believe it is due back in the Gulf soon (or may already be there). The USS Stennis was deployed last week and is due in the Gulf by the end of February.
     
  3. The Älpha Male

    The Älpha Male BigSoccer Yellow Card

    May 27, 2006
    Why the heaven were my beautiful posts removed? :confused:
    You folks down at the politics forum sure are sensitive, those pics were harmless fun. I don't see how it could have hurt anybody and it was as relevent to the topic as nicephoras talking about persia-rome, I just said that iran owned rome with 1 picture instead of 1000 thousand words ala nicephoras, if anything you all should be thanking me for saving your site some bandwidth :p
     
  4. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    I didn't see anything wrong with the post, but any picture with Ahmadinejad can not be considered "beautiful." :D
     
  5. Hank Rearden

    Hank Rearden New Member

    Jul 9, 1999
    Dundee, Illinois, USA
    Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime

    I don't know if Iran would actually target commercial shipping, but if they did I think it would be a serious mistake. Without even considering the reprehensible nature of such an idea, I suspect many potential neutrals in a Iran v. US conflict would quickly lend their support to the US. For example, I doubt that the PRC would support the US in a war against Iran (even if Iran was the aggressor), but if PRC commercial ships are being sunk by Iranian missiles, I have a feeling that the PRC would not stand in the way of US and/or UN actions against Iran - and might even send forces to help.
     
  6. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime

    One of Iran's biggest trump cards in any war against the US is its ability to cause havoc to the world economy by closing shipping through the Persian Gulf. Indeed, it is Iran's ability to do so that gives it reason to believe that it can even prevail in a war against the US. The US won't simply have enough time to defeat Iran with the world economy facing collapse from the cut off of oil supplies and the panic in the energy markets.

    What I have said is long standing Iranian policy in the event of a war. Countries like China, or those in Europe, or others elsewhere, worried about the issue will need to make sure they have a proactive foreign policy that prevents such a war. If such a war comes, however, it will have ramifications for a lot of people, not just the people of Iran. This is especially true since I have talked here about only one of several major theaters of battle in case of a war between Iran and the US.

    There are several other theaters, each implicating major issues of their own. Those theaters include the Syria-Hezbollah-Palestine/Israel front; they include Iraq and Afghanistan; they include the Caucasus and Central Asia; and they include Europe and even ultimately the US homeland.

    War with Iran will be no joke. Which is why Ahmadinejad confidently dismisses the US threats, and says the US doesn't have the capability to confront Iran despite its desire to do so.
     
  7. Hank Rearden

    Hank Rearden New Member

    Jul 9, 1999
    Dundee, Illinois, USA
    Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime

    There is a huge difference between closing off commercial shipping within the Gulf and actively targeting commercial ships for combat. If the Iranian government requires commercial ships to leave its territorial waters during a war, I don't think neutral nations will be very upset (they probably would leave voluntarily to avoid getting caught in the crossfire). However, if the Iranian military forces start attacking and sinking commercial ships they are asking for trouble. I cannot imagine what justification they could have for doing so, and any support they might have before that point would be lost.
     
  8. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime

    In case of a war, Iran will declare that the entire Persian Gulf/Sea of Oman, a 'war zone'. It will say that it will tolerate no ships passing through that zone without its permission. Any ships that do, will be engaged.

    Whoever doesn't like it. Tough luck.

    In the meantime, the US will have to either stand up and fight Iran in the narrow confines of the waters of the Persian Gulf, or withdraw from those waters, cede control of them to Iran, and see the world economy face collapse. If the US chooses the former, what it will find in store is the following, which incidentally encapsulates lessons from ancient battles including Salamis and Carhae. [This last comment was for 'nicephoras';) ]

    http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2548
     
  9. Hank Rearden

    Hank Rearden New Member

    Jul 9, 1999
    Dundee, Illinois, USA
    Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime

    I think that is an incredibly stupid - not to mention immoral - plan. If the Bush administration initiated an attack on Iran, it would have very little if any support (especially within the US). However, if the Iranian military engages in open piracy and destruction of commercial shipping outside of its territorial waters, the Bush administration would find many allies in a war against the Iranian government. Whatever nominal tactical advantage might be gained by disrupting commercial shipping in the short term would be offset by having almost all of the world against them.
     
  10. Ismitje

    Ismitje Super Moderator

    Dec 30, 2000
    The Palouse
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime

    It would constitute, per the age-old aphorism, winning the battle while losing the war.
     
  11. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime

    I disagree. Indeed, it is this threat that has prevented the US from waging war on Iran for some time now.

    Otherwise, Iran would be the easiest country to whip up American sentiments against for such a war. The hostage crisis, the bombing of the US embassy and marine barracks in Beirut; the capture, torture, and death of CIA station chief, William Buckley, along with the captivity of a host of American and European figures in Lebanon; direct and indirect engagements between US and Iranian forces during the reflagging escort operations by US and western naval forces in the Persian Gulf; the Salman Rushdie affair; possibly even the Lockerbie bombing blamed on Qaddafi; almost certainly the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia; down to current covert wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the recent Israeli/Hezbollah war...If these and other incidents have not led to war, it has not been because an American public which during the same time frame tolerated, inter alia, the invasion of Grenada, Panama, the bombing of Libya, Desert Storm and the recent wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, some for the flimsiest of excuses, has been so vigilante and able to check America's aggessive impulses! It is because a war against Iran would have to calculate the loss of much of the west's energy supplies.
     
  12. Scarecrow

    Scarecrow Red Card

    Feb 13, 2004
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime

    Firstly I think any threat to international shipping is a bluff. iran would not risk the international wrath that such action would take. It would not only bring about immediate support and legitimacy to any US Military action, but would make it impossible for Russia or China to protect iran from very serious sanctions.

    An interesting read here:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...8683.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

    A little about the two who wrote this piece:

    Brig. Gen. David L. Grange is chief executive officer of the McCormick Tribune Foundation. Ilan Berman is vice president for policy at the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington. They are the co-chairs of the Working Group on Iran's Global Influence, which released its final report, "Forging an Iran Strategy," in November.
     
  13. Scarecrow

    Scarecrow Red Card

    Feb 13, 2004
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    More stupidity from the mouth of one of the world's leaders in this dept. I think he is no. 1 at this with Chavez and Bush at 2 and 3.

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/1/24/112815.shtml?s-icp

    Yeah the US and Israel are to blame for a split that began before North America was even known to either group.

    I bet the UK is really worried about this as well.
     
  14. Scarecrow

    Scarecrow Red Card

    Feb 13, 2004
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a_Aw9B.MGCuY&refer=us

    The above is from last May. You can bet that the US has plans for countering any action iran might attempt.
     
  15. Hank Rearden

    Hank Rearden New Member

    Jul 9, 1999
    Dundee, Illinois, USA
    I think you misunderstood him. He is claiming that the US and Israel are playing upon sectarian differences among Muslims in order to instigate internal violence and strife.

    I wonder why he believes this, as the Bush administration has been pushing for an end to the sectarian violence in Iraq (which actually appears to benefit the Iranian government). Perhaps he thinks the Bush administration has been taking sides in Lebanon (supporting the Christians), which is true - but Hezbollah asked for this by indiscriminately lobbing missiles into a neighboring country (not the best way to gain support from the US).
     
  16. Hank Rearden

    Hank Rearden New Member

    Jul 9, 1999
    Dundee, Illinois, USA
    Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime

    I think you overstate the "aggressive impulses" of the US. Certainly, our government has made tragic mistakes (most obviously by invading Iraq), but if you think the US ever considered attacking Iran over the "Salman Rushdie affair", you are seriously deluded. Among the conflicts you listed, the only significant ones are Afghanistan and Iraq (Kosovo is more significant than those others). While the US public has not been able to prevent the government from getting involved in these conflicts (I'll never understand why any Senator or Representative who voted for the "Authorization of Force in Iraq" is still in office - let alone Bush :mad: ), there has been serious opposition to the invasion of Iraq (especially from typical US allies).

    After the Iraq experience, I can't see Congress giving another "Authorization of Force" to the Bush administration unless Iran made a pretty audacious attack (e.g., launching a nuke or something) - maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I think most people here don't want war (certainly not for nation-building or enforcing non-proliferation agreements).
     
  17. Scarecrow

    Scarecrow Red Card

    Feb 13, 2004
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think on that first part you are right, I misunderstood what was said. I take it that he is saying that the US and Israel are exploiting the split between the 2 groups for our own gain. Ironic that he would say that since he is doing that very thing in iraq and Lebanon.
     
  18. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime

    The examples I gave were meant in part to show the kind of flimsy excuses that have allowed the US to invade or attack other countries. For instance, the US invaded Grenada on the pretext that some medical students might have been in danger there because of Cuban presence on that island. The US invaded Panama ostensibly because Noriega, a former CIA informant, was involved in drug trafficing; the orders for the invasion came after an incident were some American was beaten up by Panamanian security forces. The US ordered the bombing of Libya, specifically targetting Qadafi's headquarters and killing his infant child, because of Libya's alleged involvement in the bombing of discotheque in Germany that had resulted in the death of some American servicemen. At the same time, during the Reagan administration, the US was involved in a host of illegal wars, including against Nicaragua - bombing the latter's harbors on one occasion. While I concede the strong justification for international action against Saddam in Desert Storm, the US was involved in a host of other attacks on Iraq afterwards on quite flimsy grounds, culminating of course in the invasion of that country in 2003 on made up pretexts.

    If you consider the pretexts for military actions in the cases I cited above, and compared it with the often bitter history between Iran and the US the past few decades, I think you would be foolish not to concede that in most of those instance, if it were not for the much higher stakes involved, the US would have had more reasons to attack Iran. Indeed, Iran and the US have already fought several covert proxy wars against one another, some of them with bloody consequences for both sides. In the 1980s, while Reagan was invading Grenada and bombing Libya, Iran successfully drove the US and other western countries out of Lebanon. Hezbollah was able to do the same with regard to Israeli forces that remained part of southern Lebanon. There were American casualties in the effort to liberate Lebanon and in each of those casualties, especially in the incidents such as the bombing of the US embassy and marine compound, the US could have turned around and taken military action against Iran. It didn't. And the reason it didn't was not the American public being so squimish about the US using force! Indeed, in each instance I cited where the US has used force, the American public supported the endeavor regardless of the occasionally flimsy pretexts. In a few instances, notably Iraq, the American public merely changed its mind and only after the costs (both blood and treasure) associated with the enterprise proved greater than they had bargained for.

    I don't want to deny the goodwill of many Americans, but I would never want Iran's national security dependent on their good will either. The US is the world's sole remaining superpower and the choices offered to Iran in light of its geography, resources, and history, are to either to accept American overlordship or to have the means to deter its aggressive impulses. The rest is propaganda.
     
  19. Ismitje

    Ismitje Super Moderator

    Dec 30, 2000
    The Palouse
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime

    I think you misunderstand me. I totally agree that the threat (or, if not oan overt threat, belief that it would happen) of attacking all shipping in the gulf is very effective. But actually sinking non-military shipping (which is what was being discussed when I commented previously) from non-aggressor states would very quickly turn neutral opinion against Iran.
     
  20. Mani

    Mani BigSoccer Supporter

    Aug 1, 2004
    Club:
    Perspolis
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    IM,

    What do you think of reunification of Tajikistan, and Tajik areas of Afghanistan, with Iran? Or perhaps some sort of a confederation of Persian countries? Do you think there is a possibility? Most Tajiks I've talked to would welcome some sort of reunification with Iran, but would such arrangement be beneficial to Iran and Iranians considering that Tajikistan is an extremely poor country? Is such arrangement in the Islamic Republic's agenda? What would US and Russia have to say about this?
     
  21. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime

    I actually believe that in case of a war, and in light of Iran's current anti ship capabilities, international shipping in the waters of the Persian Gulf will come to a complete halt. Tanker insurance rates would simply be prohibitive. Those ships that do take the risks to operate in those waters, would be ones directly or indirectly aligning themselves with the US. They would be doing so with open eyes, knowing their action would contradict Iran's strategic objectives in trying to win such a war.

    Although I don't wish to belabor this point too much, let me add that the threat is effective only when it is also credible. There is little doubt that Iran would not proceed as I have suggested. Indeed, when it comes to the Persian Gulf theater of operations, the focal point of Iran's military doctrine in case of war rests on two pillars. One purely military, consisting of closing off the Straits of Hormuz, trapping US naval forces within the Persian Gulf with the escape routes closed, destroying those US naval forces, while hitting American bases in countries like Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain. The second one is economic: to close the straits of Hormuz, stop international shipping in the area, while as among its last resorts, even bomb and destroy the oil facilites and ports in the region, such as the Saudi oil refinery at Ras al Khaimah.

    The US knows Iran is not bluffing in this regard because Iran's military forces have been trained and equiped along those lines, practicing these contingencies before America's eyes. If the US had any doubts, those doubts could be dispelled for it by some of the former high ranking officials of the Islamic Republic, including a few revolutionary guards commanders on that list, who are now dissidents living in exile. Many now closely cooperating with the US.
     
  22. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    While I don't think Iran would have any interest occupying any place outside its borders, or to impose itself on anyone else, it is in Iran's interest to expand its circle of friends. In our own region, our natural allies certainly include those who belong to the larger Iranian family of people as well as those that are shia, regardless of their historical ethnicity.

    What makes the competition in Central Asia, between Iran, Russia, China, the US and Turkey, very critical for Iran is the role this region can play in linking to China and to India both. If the region was liberated from both Russian and US imperialism, you could build pipelines running from Iran (which holds the second largest reserves of natural gas) to Afghanistan, and then to both China and India. Some of those pipelines could and would include Tajikistan. In the process, they would not only benefit economically from the transit trade, but Iran's interest to exploit its natural gas resources would meet a reliable customer in the far east without having to go through unreliable routes.

    In the competition in Central Asia, as in the Caucasus, Iran's long term goals are consistent with the interests of the people in the region as well as those of China. The same is not true of Russia. And certainly the US, which is hell bent on preventing Iran from becoming a major economic, military, ideological and political power, has defined its interests inopposite to our's. Hence, none of what is needed to happen will come to Iran easily.
     
  23. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime

    I'm obviously extremely biased against the Islamic Republic of Iran, but I like to think I have a strong sense of justice. If Iran is attacked I don't think we should expect them to lay back and enjoy it! Disrupting commerce would actually be a very civilized response that would limit the number of fatalities.

    Given the extraordinary capabilites of the American navy as well as our, ahem, priorities, I'm not sure Iran would be successful in this endeavour.
     
  24. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    Re: Israelis prepare public for conflict with 'genocidal' Iranian regime

    I obviously agree with you on this issue. Indeed, in all major wars, you have similar attempts from the parties involved.

    I have no doubt you are mistaken on this point. It really is not that difficult to map out the tactics on both sides, and see how Iran has the upperhand when it comes to the Persian Gulf theater of operations. Iran has the anti ship missiles that can hit any target in those waters, the kind of long coastline with natural barriers to be able to hide those missiles, and a host of means besides these to make shipping through the Persian Gulf come to a stop.

    The more debateable issue is whether Iran will also be able to trap and destroy the US navy in the Persian Gulf. Trust me: even on this issue, the balance of expert opinion suggest Iran would have that capability. Indeed, in a study by Jane's on the issue, it was clear that in case of a war with Iran, the US would need to withdraw its naval assets from the Persian Gulf. Those assets, instead, would probably operate from the Indian Ocean up to the waters of the Sea of Oman. To venture within the waters of the Persian Gulf in case of a war would pose major force protection issues, and risk having them trapped there is Iran closes the straits and then targets them through its anti ship missiles, through small attack craft using swarming techniques, and through some other means such as mining and even Iran's fixed and rotary aircraft.

    As I suggested in my initial post on this subject, in the Persian Gulf theater of operations, Iran would focus on the following: a) UN naval assets and forces, including both US warships as well as US bases; b) Commercial Shipping; and c) Oil and Port facilities of some of the countries that either host US bases or otherwise are seen as having influence on the actions will take, including those of Saudi Arabia.

    To offset Iran's capabilities in this regard, the US is rushing shipments of anti missile systems to some of these states. But Iran's missile inventory is too large, and its missiles too sophisticated, for these anti missile systems to be able to shoot down but a few of the missiles fired their way.
     
  25. Scarecrow

    Scarecrow Red Card

    Feb 13, 2004
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    iran poses no real threat to the US Navy. Our defense systems are decades ahead of the missiles that iran has bought from China.

    http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_Navy_Certifies_Latest_Version_Of_Aegis_Missile_Defense_System_999.html

    http://www.nwdc.navy.mil/Conops/Sea_Shield/SeaShield.aspx

    http://www.nwdc.navy.mil/Conops/Sea_Shield/LCS.aspx
     

Share This Page