• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US carrier crosses Hormuz against Iran threats

And Israel has been murdering Iranian scientists. I don't see war out of it, but then again, Israel has never been one to be rational. I suspect Israel would just up the level of assassination though.

My point is that Iran is not afraid to up the ante with more brinkmanship. In fact, as the regime's grip on power has become more precarious, they've lashed out more, not less. It hardly seems implausible that they could go one step too far and cause a war.

Talking two different situations here. Strikes to stop Iranian nuclear capability and a reaction to acts of war would be different situations. Admittedly the latter does not mean regime change, but there would be heavy strikes on iranian military targets and would probably heavily destablize Iran. With the precarious situation Iran is in, that could easily precipitate internal regime change.

The Iranian regime may see it differently...especially given the extreme difficulties they're likely to face in another public uprising if they DON'T have some kind of diversion. Heavy strikes on Iranian military targets might encourage a rally-around-the-flag show of support and actually empower the regime, whereas letting them stew would almost certainly lead to another mass uprising when the money runs out.

Again, Iran has a very limited number of tools it can work with, and only a couple have the potential for positive outcomes for the Iranian power structure. Either bait israel into an act that would bring the Arab states together against Israel, which is unlikely, or keep working on diplomacy. The latter is far more likely to work.

In terms of the ayatollah's grip on power, I'd say they have a lot more to fear from their own people than they do from either the Israelis or the Arabs. And judging by their actions, the ayatollahs themselves seem to have reached the same conclusion. I doubt the question of "Will Israel launch a war that ends in our removal from power?" even crosses their minds. A better question from their perspective is "Will a war with Israel make it more or less likely that our own people will rise up against us?"

And honestly it's probably too late for any sort of diplomacy. Iran is in truly dire straits and is likely to face a severe crisis within days or a few weeks at most. Time has already run out for any sort of major diplomatic breakthrough.
 
Last edited:
Talking two different situations here. Strikes to stop Iranian nuclear capability and a reaction to acts of war would be different situations. Admittedly the latter does not mean regime change, but there would be heavy strikes on iranian military targets and would probably heavily destablize Iran. With the precarious situation Iran is in, that could easily precipitate internal regime change.

Again, Iran has a very limited number of tools it can work with, and only a couple have the potential for positive outcomes for the Iranian power structure. Either bait israel into an act that would bring the Arab states together against Israel, which is unlikely, or keep working on diplomacy. The latter is far more likely to work.

The way I see it, Iran has painted themselves into a corner. If they trigger war deliberately or accidentally, their military will be destroyed and the leaders killed or ousted. If they open up their doors to the IAEA, this will probably result in their leaders being ousted or discredited so badly they fall from power.

Maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part, but that's the way I see it.
 
There is nothing to think about it


What side are you in? Iran and the Ayatoilttes?? or the rest of the western world? It's that simple.
 
The way I see it, Iran has painted themselves into a corner. If they trigger war deliberately or accidentally, their military will be destroyed and the leaders killed or ousted. If they open up their doors to the IAEA, this will probably result in their leaders being ousted or discredited so badly they fall from power.

Maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part, but that's the way I see it.

Those are not the only two ways out of this situation. The sanctions coupled with the current regimes desire to stay in power requires that they open themselves up to diplomatic cooperation with the rest of the world. These sanctions have almost crippled the economy of Iran and it's leaders, whomever they are, must deal with that reality and start to cooperate with those they shunned previously.
 
Talking two different situations here. Strikes to stop Iranian nuclear capability and a reaction to acts of war would be different situations. Admittedly the latter does not mean regime change, but there would be heavy strikes on iranian military targets and would probably heavily destablize Iran. With the precarious situation Iran is in, that could easily precipitate internal regime change.

Again, Iran has a very limited number of tools it can work with, and only a couple have the potential for positive outcomes for the Iranian power structure. Either bait israel into an act that would bring the Arab states together against Israel, which is unlikely, or keep working on diplomacy. The latter is far more likely to work.

The Obama WH ordered that Diego Garcia be loaded with enough smart bombs combined with Carrier Groups assets to hit over 10,000 Iranian targets. They think they should obliterate Iran's military in order to prevent any asymmetrical warfare from developing.

USA to destory Iran with smart bombs from Diego Garcia - English pravda.ru

I kept wondering why we supported so heavy the Arab revolutions in the states surrounding Israel. I think it's because of not having stable regimes that would be able to support pro-Iranian or anti-Israel. That could be a stretch but I sincerely believe that conversation occurred at high levels of geopolitical strategy.
 
There is nothing to think about it

What side are you in? Iran and the Ayatoilttes?? or the rest of the western world? It's that simple.

The best thing for everybody, Iranians included, is if the Khomeinis go away. I don't care much how they go away, just that they go away.
 
The best thing for everybody, Iranians included, is if the Khomeinis go away. I don't care much how they go away, just that they go away.

Replaced by whom?
 
The best thing for everybody, Iranians included, is if the Khomeinis go away. I don't care much how they go away, just that they go away.

I agree the Ayatoilettes have to go!
 
Those are not the only two ways out of this situation. The sanctions coupled with the current regimes desire to stay in power requires that they open themselves up to diplomatic cooperation with the rest of the world. These sanctions have almost crippled the economy of Iran and it's leaders, whomever they are, must deal with that reality and start to cooperate with those they shunned previously.

Yeah, that's option #2. Going the diplomatic route is by far their best choice. That will include granting the IAEA FULL access. The IAEA will probably uncover something fishy. Perhaps not a full-fledged nuke but certainly a try to build one. I see this resulting in big trouble for the Khomeinis who will probably be discredited and soon after, sacked.

This is how they're painted into a corner. Whatever they do, it won't go well for the Iranian leadership. That's bad for them, good for the rest of the world, especially the Iranian people.
 
Yeah, that's option #2. Going the diplomatic route is by far their best choice. That will include granting the IAEA FULL access. The IAEA will probably uncover something fishy. Perhaps not a full-fledged nuke but certainly a try to build one. I see this resulting in big trouble for the Khomeinis who will probably be discredited and soon after, sacked.

This is how they're painted into a corner. Whatever they do, it won't go well for the Iranian leadership. That's bad for them, good for the rest of the world, especially the Iranian people.


Sure that is a linear perspective, however, should this occur that means the current regime is mailable and may serve the best purpose for all in the region. At which point they would be supported by all concerned as they essentially would serve a puppets and stay in power as long as they serve that purpose. Not a bad deal.
 
I agree the Ayatoilettes have to go!

Again, who would replace them. Can anyone who supports this position please provide an answer.
 
Replaced by whom?

Whomever the Iranians elect. The Iranian people are very educated and cosmopolitan and worldly-wise, and that's what Democracy needs to succeed. Democracy was(is) a struggle in Iraq, but Iran's populace would do a far better job at installing a new government.
 
Again, who would replace them. Can anyone who supports this position please provide an answer.


Like EagleAye explained


" Whomever the Iranians elect. The Iranian people are very educated and cosmopolitan and worldly-wise, and that's what Democracy needs to succeed. Democracy was(is) a struggle in Iraq, but Iran's populace would do a far better job at installing a new government"
 
Like EagleAye explained


" Whomever the Iranians elect. The Iranian people are very educated and cosmopolitan and worldly-wise, and that's what Democracy needs to succeed. Democracy was(is) a struggle in Iraq, but Iran's populace would do a far better job at installing a new government"

Thanks for parroting his words.
 
Whomever the Iranians elect. The Iranian people are very educated and cosmopolitan and worldly-wise, and that's what Democracy needs to succeed. Democracy was(is) a struggle in Iraq, but Iran's populace would do a far better job at installing a new government.


The problem I see with this is a third party much like a foreign government would have to be involved to effectuate a proper democracy. A democracy is my goal as well. However I do not see where this country is ready for a true democracy.

For example, "Current Constitution adopted 2nd-3rd December 1979; significant revisions expanding presidential powers and eliminating prime ministership in 1989. Article 4 provides that all civil, penal, financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political, and any other laws must be based on Islamic criteria" That does not seem to allow for a true democracy where human rights would be respected.
 
The Obama WH ordered that Diego Garcia be loaded with enough smart bombs combined with Carrier Groups assets to hit over 10,000 Iranian targets. They think they should obliterate Iran's military in order to prevent any asymmetrical warfare from developing.

USA to destory Iran with smart bombs from Diego Garcia - English pravda.ru

I kept wondering why we supported so heavy the Arab revolutions in the states surrounding Israel. I think it's because of not having stable regimes that would be able to support pro-Iranian or anti-Israel. That could be a stretch but I sincerely believe that conversation occurred at high levels of geopolitical strategy.

Do not overestimate what those can do. They can do alot, but not s much as you might think. The bombs they are referring to are standard 500, 1000 and 2000 pound bombs(BLU series) equipped with laser guidance most likely. To give you an idea, when I was in the navy with old F-18C's, we would carry sometimes 8 2k pound bombs(mk84/BLU-117) per aircraft. The few hundred the article talks about would be used in a single strike, and the 10k number you give in a week. It would be virtually impossible to destroy either Iran's nuclear or military capability with just airstrikes and would take many times the amount of ordnance the article you link suggests.

Iran may however have some Phoenix missiles left they can load on their few F-14's and get some actual aircraft kills, but few and not for long.
 
There is nothing to think about it


What side are you in? Iran and the Ayatoilttes?? or the rest of the western world? It's that simple.

No it is not that simple. I am on the side of US interests. US interests do not neccessarily require regime change in Iran.
 
Thanks for parroting his words.



who's parroting? moi? LOL Connery :lamo

ParrotFunnyPictures_4.jpg
 

So this is who you suggest would take over once the current thugs and lunatics are removed?



I vast improvement I say!!!!!:thumbs:
 
Apparently the sanctions that have been imposed against Iran have proven to costly to Iran as they have resorted to bartering to bypass the sanctions. There are many ways to approach this problem and an outright war is not the only or most effective solution.

Well, what would you suggest? It seems to me that the Supreme Leader views nuclear weapons as assured immunity. Kim Jong Il demonstrated how untouchable an authoritarian can become when sitting on a couple of nukes. Perhaps the arab spring spooked them a bit, especially considering how smoothly Iran's last election went. Kim Jong's demise is probably a bit more appealing than ending up lynched with a steak knife up your ass.

I don't see what you could offer that would convince them to surrender the kind of protection nukes would provide them.
 
No it is not that simple. I am on the side of US interests. US interests do not neccessarily require regime change in Iran.

I agree. Keep the old guys there and work them like circus monkeys, while gradually introducing changes which would suit the most beneficial purpose.
 
The problem I see with this is a third party much like a foreign government would have to be involved to effectuate a proper democracy. A democracy is my goal as well. However I do not see where this country is ready for a true democracy.

For example, "Current Constitution adopted 2nd-3rd December 1979; significant revisions expanding presidential powers and eliminating prime ministership in 1989. Article 4 provides that all civil, penal, financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political, and any other laws must be based on Islamic criteria" That does not seem to allow for a true democracy where human rights would be respected.

Well, a think one of the first things they do would be throw out the old constitution and install a brand new one. There would be no reason for them to stick with the old. I doubt they'd want to. And they probably would need a little help defining the new government with a third party, but I think that help should be as minimal as possible. It would a lot to avoid accusations of "puppet-state."

Things would be tough for them at first, but I think a lot of governments would be willing to help ameliorate the difficulties.
 
So this is who you suggest would take over once the current thugs and lunatics are removed?



I vast improvement I say!!!!!:thumbs:



yes :mrgreen: I suggest SuperBird! ( we better laugh while we wait for this new war huh? :2razz:)


Free-Super-Man-Bird-Twitter-Icon.gif
 
Well, what would you suggest? It seems to me that the Supreme Leader views nuclear weapons as assured immunity. Kim Jong Il demonstrated how untouchable an authoritarian can become when sitting on a couple of nukes. Perhaps the arab spring spooked them a bit, especially considering how smoothly Iran's last election went. Kim Jong's demise is probably a bit more appealing than ending up lynched with a steak knife up your ass.

I don't see what you could offer that would convince them to surrender the kind of protection nukes would provide them.


The nukes do not provide them any protection. The very idea of nukes only suggest annihilation. Again, my proposal would be to keep the old guys there and use them to support both US and Iranian goals such as economic stability in Iran.

I found this to be supportive:
Now, with Iran feeling the pressure, its leaders suddenly seem prepared to talk. Of course, Iran’s government might try to draw out talks while pursuing their nuclear program. But if that is their strategy, they will face even more onerous pressures, when a planned European boycott of their oil begins on July 1.

Moreover, given Mr. Obama’s stated determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Iran’s leaders may actually be making the use of force against their nuclear facilities more likely by playing for time.

Iran can have civilian nuclear power, but it must not have nuclear weapons. Ultimately, Ayatollah Khamenei will have to decide what poses a greater threat to his rule: ending his quest for nuclear weapons or stubbornly pursuing them as crippling economic pressures mount.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/opinion/give-diplomacy-with-iran-a-chance.html
 
Just think how much money our economy could make if it were based on honesty, integrity, and compassion for our fellow human beings. The innovation would be awe-inspiring. Instead, our government and corporations have invested all of their energy and resources in clinging to the old ways.

These old ways are dying, but the older generation is going to make the entire world pay in blood as they go down. It's really sad and unfortunate. It doesn't have to be this way.

What's even worse is that the U.S. government knows that this time around the American people do not want war, and that the pre-text of nuclear weapons in Iran is not going to work; yet our President is still going to deploy the army anyway.

The situation is getting really out of control.
 
Back
Top Bottom