Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 88

Thread: Iran: War Option on the Table

  1. #11
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Iran: War Option on the Table

    The US/Israel and allies do not have to invade Iran. All they have to do is weaken them, and send the nuclear program back a decade or two.

    I do agree however that, if they do invade, it would weaken the US strategical footprint globally, and some of our enemies might seize the opportunity to make a point. Namely Russia in some of her former republics, and NK. China might make a move on Taiwan, knowing that the US engaged in iran would be more willing to make a deal for Taiwan. There are lots of potential scenarios..

    The allies would need to avoid boots on the ground in order to maintain.


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  2. #12
    Student
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    255

    Re: Iran: War Option on the Table

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    That's possible, but I consider it unlikely. It's more likely that Iran would attack Israel, and vice versa. And, I believe that we have little or no control over Israel these days. The military option is ALWAYS on the table, but it is actually rarely utilized by the U.S., in actuality.
    I strongly believe that if Iran attacks Israel, USA will go to full scale war with Iran. because that wouldn't be like wars with Lebanon or hezbollah. Iran has a strong army, and missiles which can get to Israel. this means that Israel actually faces a devastating threat, and of course all of her allies would participate in such a war.


    I'd say the chances are less than 10% unless Ahmadinejad provoked it by doing something ridiculous. And, the only reason I can think of for him to do that would be to distract the people of Iran and create a new enemy for them, so as to shift the focus off of his failings. However, I consider that likelihood scary but again, unlikely.
    ahmadinejad always does something ridiculous. that's why I'm so afraid. btw, nothing can shift the focus off the government right now. it's not like that people and government are in disagreement. people are against the government. this is totally different than the situation before the elections.

    I mean, North Korea has been threatening the same damn thing, and probably has nuclear weapons, and we haven't bombed them yet.
    North Korea's situation is totally different. they're totally supported by china, since if they fall, china would be alone in that region, facing multiple threats from US.


    Not really, no. The troops have been deployed for almost a decade, and we can't really maintain that.
    even if lack of troops is the problem, US may go for a air strike and everything can happen then. even US may consider attacking despite being weaker than before, just not to face a bigger threat of nuclear Iran in the future.

  3. #13
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Iran: War Option on the Table

    Youknowwho,

    I agree with Redress' assessment of the reported comments. I believe that the probability of the United States' launching a military operation this year is very low for a number of reasons:

    1. The situation in Iraq remains delicate. A war could greatly destablize that country (pro Iranian elements there + Iran).

    2. The economic recoveries in the U.S. and Europe are modest and important risks remain. Any significant additional shock could prove perilous.

    3. Iran has threatened to retaliate against the Persian Gulf's oil infrastructure and shipping. A significant energy price shock would almost certainly push the U.S. and Europe back into recession. Were Iran to take out a meaningful share of the Persian Gulf's oil infrastructure, the result could be more than a recession. Incredibly, even as the world witnessed a brief but sharp spike in oil prices in 2008, almost nothing has been done to diversify the energy supply. Hence, much as the lessons of the 1970s oil price shocks were forgotten, those associated with the 2008 spike have also been forgotten. That leaves an area of vulnerability that Iran could exploit.

    Of course, Iran could be bluffing with its threats to attack the Persian Gulf's oil infrastructure. At the same time, revolutionary regimes can sometimes prefer mutual destruction over preserving an existing order when faced with bad outcome. Hence, if the Iranian regime sees nuclear weapons as being central to its legacy, it could well choose to inflict a severe price globally in retaliation for being denied the ability to attain such weapons.

    4. Little substantial progress has been achieved in Afghanistan. Given the fragile situation there, it is not implausible that Iran could, if it desired, actually tilt the balance of power against NATO forces there.

    5. Caution due to the U.S. military's planning failures. Too many unintended and "unforeseen" issues arose in Iraq and Afghanistan. The complexity and stakes involved in a military operation against Iran would be much greater.

    6. Growing cost disadvantages for the U.S. military. Currently, the U.S. is expending about $1.2 million per soldier per year in Afghanistan. The cost issue, especially at a time of fiscal challenge, makes a sustained military operation unappealing. Hence, unless a "knock out" blow that takes out Iran's nuclear facilities and shatters its capacity to retaliate could be achieved, the U.S. would face a formidable challenge.

    7. Questions about the lasting impact of a military operation i.e., effectiveness (some sites are hidden, others are deep underground and would require near-suicidal special forces operations to be taken out, and Iran's attaining such weapons could only be delayed for a relatively small amount of time).

    8. U.S. public sentiment could be problematic, especially if breakthroughs are not achieved in Afghanistan and the nation's unemployment rate remains elevated.

    All in all, my guess is that the U.S. might consider an additional sanctions regime to build on what currently amounts to fairly modest sanctions. It might also seriously consider the feasibility of constructing a deterrence regime to address the issues that would arise should Iran gain a nuclear weapons capability. Given the risks and circumstances, war would be a last resort by necessity.

  4. #14
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Iran: War Option on the Table

    Don, it is also probably worth noting that the US intelligence community probably has significant operations in place in Iran. I would suspect it is almost certain that we are funneling weapons and money and knowhow to Iranians opposed to the current government in a hope of an eventual coup.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  5. #15
    Student
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    255

    Re: Iran: War Option on the Table

    Quote Originally Posted by joergan View Post
    The day iran began de-stablizing iraq through training, funding, arming, and ordering attacks on US troops by its usual terrorist proxies there it became a full-scale war. Just as it does not get a pass for hamas, hezbollah, islamic jihad, its attacks on the kurds, and so many other groups inside iran that the human rights groups never seem to want to highlight much.
    it technically isn't a full scale war, since US haven't attacked Iranian soil yet.

    A half-rational president would and should have attacked iran almost 7 years ago...
    7 years ago the situation was different. reformists were in the government, and everything seemed to be going well. that's no longer the case.

    Actually, there's far more: 60,000 in Germany, 60,000 in Japan, 58,000 in South Korea, the entire Navy and Air Force, neither of whom are expending much men or material towards either iraq or afghanistan, PLUS the 85,000 troops about to leave iraq PLUS the coming drawdowns in Afghan.
    one more reason which I think there is a likeliness of a war.
    Then there are the recent veterans like myself who would re-enlist and serve in an attack on iran to conduct regime change there, and bring those animals to the Hague to be hanged for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. Trust me, I've spoken to alot of my former battalion members and alot of us would go there for an E-1 salary to get the job done...
    I admire your courage and bravery, also the fact that you're ready to act based on your beliefs. I just can't agree with you that war is going to make the Iranian's lives better. I strongly believe that Iranians should find a way themselves to bring justice and freedom to their country.

  6. #16
    Student
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    255

    Re: Iran: War Option on the Table

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    While this is possible, it would require a whole lot of stupidity from your government. They cannot win such a war. Israel alone could probably defeat the Iranian army, and Israel would not be alone. There is simply no upside for your government to escalate.
    there's no other way for them. the embarassment from being attacked and not being able to counterattack, would fire up another wave of revolution in Iran. it's a lose - lose scenario for Iranian government and I don't think they're gonna go down without hitting others.



    The Coalition used 300k troops for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It would take more for Iran. 50k is not enough, especially when the US military is over-deployed. US soldiers have spent too much time deployed the last 8 years or so, and need to start getting more downtime. Just having the troops available does not make invasion likely.
    see joergan's reply.

  7. #17
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Iran: War Option on the Table

    why doesn't obama just MEET with the leaders of iran, like he promised?

    i guess the reachout in cairo didn't work

    kinda like the stimulus, it appears

    oh well
    Last edited by The Prof; 08-04-10 at 02:26 PM.

  8. #18
    Student
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    255

    Re: Iran: War Option on the Table

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Youknowwho,

    I agree with Redress' assessment of the reported comments. I believe that the probability of the United States' launching a military operation this year is very low for a number of reasons:

    1. The situation in Iraq remains delicate. A war could greatly destablize that country (pro Iranian elements there + Iran).

    2. The economic recoveries in the U.S. and Europe are modest and important risks remain. Any significant additional shock could prove perilous.

    3. Iran has threatened to retaliate against the Persian Gulf's oil infrastructure and shipping. A significant energy price shock would almost certainly push the U.S. and Europe back into recession. Were Iran to take out a meaningful share of the Persian Gulf's oil infrastructure, the result could be more than a recession. Incredibly, even as the world witnessed a brief but sharp spike in oil prices in 2008, almost nothing has been done to diversify the energy supply. Hence, much as the lessons of the 1970s oil price shocks were forgotten, those associated with the 2008 spike have also been forgotten. That leaves an area of vulnerability that Iran could exploit.

    Of course, Iran could be bluffing with its threats to attack the Persian Gulf's oil infrastructure. At the same time, revolutionary regimes can sometimes prefer mutual destruction over preserving an existing order when faced with bad outcome. Hence, if the Iranian regime sees nuclear weapons as being central to its legacy, it could well choose to inflict a severe price globally in retaliation for being denied the ability to attain such weapons.

    4. Little substantial progress has been achieved in Afghanistan. Given the fragile situation there, it is not implausible that Iran could, if it desired, actually tilt the balance of power against NATO forces there.

    5. Caution due to the U.S. military's planning failures. Too many unintended and "unforeseen" issues arose in Iraq and Afghanistan. The complexity and stakes involved in a military operation against Iran would be much greater.

    6. Growing cost disadvantages for the U.S. military. Currently, the U.S. is expending about $1.2 million per soldier per year in Afghanistan. The cost issue, especially at a time of fiscal challenge, makes a sustained military operation unappealing. Hence, unless a "knock out" blow that takes out Iran's nuclear facilities and shatters its capacity to retaliate could be achieved, the U.S. would face a formidable challenge.

    7. Questions about the lasting impact of a military operation i.e., effectiveness (some sites are hidden, others are deep underground and would require near-suicidal special forces operations to be taken out, and Iran's attaining such weapons could only be delayed for a relatively small amount of time).

    8. U.S. public sentiment could be problematic, especially if breakthroughs are not achieved in Afghanistan and the nation's unemployment rate remains elevated.

    All in all, my guess is that the U.S. might consider an additional sanctions regime to build on what currently amounts to fairly modest sanctions. It might also seriously consider the feasibility of constructing a deterrence regime to address the issues that would arise should Iran gain a nuclear weapons capability. Given the risks and circumstances, war would be a last resort by necessity.
    I'll be happy if there's no war, believe me. for the same reasons you mentioned here, I had believed that there could be no war between Iran and US unless one side makes a very provocative action. but, the reason that I'm considering the possibility of a war is because the economic situation in Iran is at its worst after revolution, government popularity is at the lowest rate, and it seems that government considers nuclear bomb the last resort to gain safety against foreign threats, and then starts the war inside. so Iran is not going to back down on this issue. now, if US faces the question of either a nuclear Iran or a war with Iran, which would be chosen? I honestly do not know what happens, that's why I wanted other insights so that maybe it could enlighten me a little more on this issue.

  9. #19
    Student
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    255

    Re: Iran: War Option on the Table

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Don, it is also probably worth noting that the US intelligence community probably has significant operations in place in Iran. I would suspect it is almost certain that we are funneling weapons and money and knowhow to Iranians opposed to the current government in a hope of an eventual coup.
    Iran has a strong intelligence service as it was proven after the elections. actually I'm not seeing anything happening soon.

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: Iran: War Option on the Table

    Quote Originally Posted by youknowwho View Post
    I'll be happy if there's no war, believe me. for the same reasons you mentioned here, I had believed that there could be no war between Iran and US unless one side makes a very provocative action. but, the reason that I'm considering the possibility of a war is because the economic situation in Iran is at its worst after revolution, government popularity is at the lowest rate, and it seems that government considers nuclear bomb the last resort to gain safety against foreign threats, and then starts the war inside. so Iran is not going to back down on this issue. now, if US faces the question of either a nuclear Iran or a war with Iran, which would be chosen? I honestly do not know what happens, that's why I wanted other insights so that maybe it could enlighten me a little more on this issue.
    Generally speaking, I would say that the overwhelming majority of Americans would not support a military invasion of Iran, though they might support targeted distance strikes to send a message. Americans are tired of war, and don't want to commit additional military personnel to another invasion.

    If, however, I lived near a nuclear testing facility, I'd try to change my location. I would not at all put it past Israel to bomb those facilities.

    As far as Iran's internal issues, I believe that a U.S. invasion would be incredibly detrimental to creating democracy in Iran. This has to happen internally, and Iranians have to want it, badly. However, I would be supportive of the U.S. funneling weapons/money/resources to Iranian insurgent groups, as would most Americans, I suspect.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •