Iran v US confrontation

Trump's petro-pals would probably be quite happy talk of escalation if not with a war. How's Brent doing at the mo 75 $ ?
 
4bars said:
Everybody keeps repeating that Iran is very powerful. In which sense? how powerful is his army to claim that "power"?

Also about reliable allies. If US would invade with Israel and SA backing up, do you think China or Russia would face US + allies in an open war?
Click to expand...
Army wise, it is more powerful than any of the Arab countries. In addition, I think that they have a very decentralized militia system which makes every invasion extremely difficult. Bombing it or nuking it is doable, but invading and sustaining it will be extremely difficult, otherwise US would have done it a long time ago. Obviously, US can defeat Iran, but it would be like Iraq but 10 times worse.

Russia most likely will go all in Iran. They are far more powerful than a decade ago, and Iran is a big ally of them. They won't go toe to toe with US, but I think that they would help Iran a lot in weapons, ammunition and intelligence. Just giving a few air defense systems will complicate the job for US a lot.

A war will cost US financially a lot, and the senate is totally divided. In fact, it is possible that senate won't agree on a budget for the war, with Democrats and Republicans like Rand Paul not wanting a war. A war probably will be a wet dream for China who are quietly colonizing Africa while US goes in self-destruction mode. Europe won't help US this time - they want to stay in the Iran deal despite US left and were totally against US leaving - and neither will Turkey which makes more difficult for US to project the attack.

So, there are plenty of good reasons why I think that chances for war are extremely small.
 
Is funny that when Putin needed the most a boost on the oil, Trump is helping make it happen, so how opposed Russia would be to US striking/invading Iran? (not officially of course)
 
Raoul said:
They are well equipped to deal with an insurgency if the US were to invade. Their IRGC Quds Force operatives are well trained after having been active for decades (most recently in Iraq and Syria). The Iranians however would be completely helpless if Trump were to decide on airstrikes from Qatar and Turkey.
Click to expand...
Turkey were against US leaving the deal, and Erdogan's relations with US are not good, while at the same time he has good relations with US. In addition, Erdogan is an islamist but not a sectarian one, so he doesn't want Iran destroyed because they are Shia (I am looking at Saudi Arabia). No way that Turkey is leaving US to attack from there.

Qatar, I dunno. It is the same Trump who kind of supported Saudi Arabia-led coalition to put Qatar under sanctions. Will they be willing to help? Probably yes considering that they are spineless.
 
Captain Obvious said:
I hope Iran nukes Israel incase they do get invaded or meddled with, sick of the US/Israel duo thinking they can do what they want without any repercussions



care to expand?
Click to expand...
Hoping to nuke someone is not cool, man.

Oh, and Iran doesn't have nukes, but they can cause havoc in Israel by using chemical weapons (which in turn might result with Israel nuking them).
 
Revan said:
Turkey were against US leaving the deal, and Erdogan's relations with US are not good, while at the same time he has good relations with US. In addition, Erdogan is an islamist but not a sectarian one, so he doesn't want Iran destroyed because they are Shia (I am looking at Saudi Arabia). No way that Turkey is leaving US to attack from there.

Qatar, I dunno. It is the same Trump who kind of supported Saudi Arabia-led coalition to put Qatar under sanctions. Will they be willing to help? Probably yes considering that they are spineless.
Click to expand...

Its not just Turkey and Qatar. There's a big naval prescense in Bahrain and the capability to move carrier groups in the Persian gulf. And of course, the Saudis would be more than happy to set up new bases in eastern Saudi if it meant wacking Tehran.
 
Raoul said:
Its not just Turkey and Qatar. There's a big naval prescense in Bahrain and the capability to move carrier groups in the Persian gulf. And of course, the Saudis would be more than happy to set up new bases in eastern Saudi if it meant wacking Tehran.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Saudi Arabia would definitely do that. They hate Iran even more than Israel does. Economically though, I think that this war will have serious damage in US (in addition to 10k+ soldiers getting killed), and bring China's dominance faster than expected. For Iran, it will be a tragedy but Persia/Iran had always find a way to survive.
 
It's not about how powerful Iran is but how difficult they'd make an invasion.

Iraq was a quick invasion because in my opinion the populace had no collective reason to resist other than sectarian identity in regards to future power plays.

Iran would pose a significant challenge in regards to resistance, they're a homogeneous nation that's been ethnocentric for close to 3000 years, even the most vehemently anti-ayatollah Iranian is pro-persian. Aside from the native resistance (80 MIL population with half under 30 years old), they'd activate every single sectarian proxy at their disposal with the wider region, the Strait of Hormuz would effectively shut down cutting Europe off from the Indian Ocean and raising the price of petroleum commodities to unseen heights.

The Iranian military has been concentrating and training specifically for defence and asymmetric warfare (an example of which is using small fast boats to take down cruisers and frigates).
 
4bars said:
When I say experts, I am saying experts that they are supervising the deal, not Bolton or other guys that they have an agenda and certain phobias surrounding Trump

The US used nuclear weapons, nothing is debatable in that. And they did it on civil population. Twice.

OIbama did the upmost to prevent Iran to get the nuclear bomb. Trump (so US) broke that deal and prevented that Iran will EVER sign a deal like that again.
Click to expand...

I'm saying it's debatable whether they should have used them not if they used them, seriously?

So like I'm saying, Trump must have reason to think Obamas deal isn't working. How do we know for sure these experts don't have an agenda? Not saying they do but how can you be completely sure?
 
RedTiger said:
the Strait of Hormuz would effectively shut down cutting Europe off from the Indian Ocean and raising the price of petroleum commodities to unseen heights.
Click to expand...

This gets overlooked by the chickenhawks far too often. 30% of the worlds oil goes through the Strait, and Iran can close it if they come under attack.
 
Revan said:
Hoping to nuke someone is not cool, man.

Oh, and Iran doesn't have nukes, but they can cause havoc in Israel by using chemical weapons (which in turn might result with Israel nuking them).
Click to expand...

Sorry yeah it was out of order. The lives lost in the war against Iraq and Afghanistan plus the 1 million+ civilian deaths annoys me to no end, all for nothing. It's time they realized this shit isn't what the majority of the people want anymore. There's no 9/11s to justify it (even though 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were all saudis). Israel and Saudi Arabia don't give a single feck about Europe or America
 
Van Gaalacticos said:
I'm saying it's debatable whether they should have used them not if they used them, seriously?

So like I'm saying, Trump must have reason to think Obamas deal isn't working. How do we know for sure these experts don't have an agenda? Not saying they do but how can you be completely sure?
Click to expand...
Come on man, the only reasons that Trump is out of this deal are: 1) Obama signed it and Trump's policy is to undo everything Obama did; 2) Netanyahu asked him to do so; 3) this keeps the press out of Mueller's investigation.

It has nothing to do with Iran not keeping his part of the deal. Every agency (including Israelian one) said that Iran is keeping its deal.
 
And this would play right into Putin's hands since their entire economy is based on exporting petroleum and natural gas.
 
Van Gaalacticos said:
I'm saying it's debatable whether they should have used them not if they used them, seriously?

So like I'm saying, Trump must have reason to think Obamas deal isn't working. How do we know for sure these experts don't have an agenda? Not saying they do but how can you be completely sure?
Click to expand...

Literally everyone but Trumps team and Israel is saying that Iran is keeping to the deal at an acceptable level. Trump has done good with Korea i'll admit but he has no reason to do this other than Obama-rectifying, distraction from Mueller, influence from the war mongering Bolton team and high pressure from the Israel lobby. If you surveyed people off the street up and down in America and England, i highly doubt anyone would answer "Iran" if they were asked who is the biggest threat to society at the moment
 
Captain Obvious said:
I hope Iran nukes Israel incase they do get invaded or meddled with, sick of the US/Israel duo thinking they can do what they want without any repercussions



care to expand?
Click to expand...
Step dad and uncle (both former Army Rangers) informed me that before any talk of invading/occupying/striking a nation, we already have SF people there conducting something. And also, we have a lot of that sort of activity going on in quite a few countries, but never anything that makes news.
 
Florida Man said:
Step dad and uncle (both former Army Rangers) informed me that before any talk of invading/occupying/striking a nation, we already have SF people there conducting something. And also, we have a lot of that sort of activity going on in quite a few countries, but never anything that makes news.
Click to expand...

How do they get into the country without them knowing? or is it like spying
 
Revan said:
Come on man, the only reasons that Trump is out of this deal are: 1) Obama signed it and Trump's policy is to undo everything Obama did; 2) Netanyahu asked him to do so; 3) this keeps the press out of Mueller's investigation.

It has nothing to do with Iran not keeping his part of the deal. Every agency (including Israelian one) said that Iran is keeping its deal.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I'm just looking at the options of what's going on. Not convinced by your argument about Obama or Mueller if I'm honest but take it on board as a possible option all the same.

Didn't Israel bomb Iranian targets last night though.
 
Captain Obvious said:
How do they get into the country without them knowing? or is it like spying
Click to expand...
I don't really know the specifics. I imagine it's based on their training, where they are dropped off in the middle of nowhere and they are counted on to survive the elements, go to their target, and accomplish their task. So in this case, my guess is that they'd be dropped off in one of Turkey, Iraq, or Afghanistan.
 
1% chance of any kind of conventional invasion. Less probably. Eventually though, absent regime change from within, there will likely be air strikes aimed at Iranian nuclear facilities. But that is years away and a last option after all other measures fail. We've been hearing about an imminent attack on Iran for decades now, and I'd say we're still a long way off.

What measures? I expect the US and its allies in the region to attempt to manipulate the current unrest in Iran through the weird MEK 'opposition-in-exile' group. I think it's probably begun already. There's gonna be a big push in the next year or two, as a range of forces have aligned - Israeli red lines in Syria being crossed, the rise of Muhammad bin Salman in Iran, and of course Trump himself. I get the feeling the Israelis and Saudis have decided enough is enough re:Iran and view the current climate as their best window of opportunity for taking down the regime. However, I think using the MEK is a ploy that is destined to fail.
 
2cents said:
1% chance of any kind of conventional invasion. Less probably. Eventually though, absent regime change from within, there will likely be air strikes aimed at Iranian nuclear facilities. But that is years away and a last option after all other measures fail. We've been hearing about an imminent attack on Iran for decades now, and I'd say we're still a long way off.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I remember when it was "imminent" in 2005-2006.
 
2cents said:
1% chance of any kind of conventional invasion. Less probably. Eventually though, absent regime change from within, there will likely be air strikes aimed at Iranian nuclear facilities. But that is years away and a last option after all other measures fail. We've been hearing about an imminent attack on Iran for decades now, and I'd say we're still a long way off.

What measures? I expect the US and its allies in the region to attempt to manipulate the current unrest in Iran through the weird MEK 'opposition-in-exile' group. I think it's probably begun already. There's gonna be a big push in the next year or two, as a range of forces have aligned - Israeli red lines in Syria being crossed, the rise of Muhammad bin Salman in Iran, and of course Trump himself. I get the feeling the Israelis and Saudis have decided enough is enough re:Iran and view the current climate as their best window of opportunity for taking down the regime. However, I think using the MEK is a ploy that is destined to fail.
Click to expand...

Id imagine they know their time is limited, atleast until 2020. I cannot see Trump getting out of the investigation with a 2nd term. Hopefully it's a Dem president who wouldn't play up to the Saudis and Israelis
 
MTF said:
Indeed, I remember when it was "imminent" in 2005-2006.
Click to expand...

In the mid-2000s John Pilger would publish the same article every year on the imminent attack. For anyone convinced of the all-encompassing power of the Israel Lobby, the fact that their wishes on this have gone unfulfilled for over twenty years now should bring home some of the limitations other factors place on the lobby's ability to shape US policy.
 
Iranians are very nationalistic and its young men will not stay quiet if Iran is militarily harmed. They will find a way to harm the US or its allies. ISIS and Taliban will find a surge in support even though they are both anti-Shia. Israel will be the only winners as they'll use US as proxies to fight their battles.
 
Captain Obvious said:
Id imagine they know their time is limited, atleast until 2020. I cannot see Trump getting out of the investigation with a 2nd term. Hopefully it's a Dem president who wouldn't play up to the Saudis and Israelis
Click to expand...

You say that you can't see Trump getting a second term because of the investigation but I don't believe Trump supporters will ever believe the Russia links and they just don't care that Donald Trump slept with pornstars or anyone for that matter, his reputation with women wasn't a secret before he got elected. I'm not arguing or anything but I think that's how Trump supporters feel. I think he'll be re-elected to be honest.
 
Van Gaalacticos said:
You say that you can't see Trump getting a second term because of the investigation but I don't believe Trump supporters will ever believe the Russia links and they just don't care that Donald Trump slept with pornstars or anyone for that matter, his reputation with women wasn't a secret before he got elected. I'm not arguing or anything but I think that's how Trump supporters feel. I think he'll be re-elected to be honest.
Click to expand...

Im not talking about his supporters, im talking about everyone else (who are the majority)

The reason why i think he won't get a 2nd term is because of this:

Despite the enthusiasm and unwavering support from his followers, Trump managed to get roughly the same amount of votes as Mitt Romney, he only won because of the shitfest Clinton is, a lot of voters stayed away or voted for the Green party. Now the opposition have rallied, a lot of people who didn't vote and are starting to hate trump now are going out and winning it for the Dems in a lot of supposedly safe seats for Republicans.

This will reflect in 2020, the only things the Dems need to do is to find a candidate that will resonate with the voters like Obama or close to it. Biden is my most likely bet.

The midterms later this year will reflect this, if Dems manage to take the house then you can bet that Trump will lose in 2020
 
MTF said:
Indeed, I remember when it was "imminent" in 2005-2006.
Click to expand...

IIRC the US did war games about an Iran invasion and the administration wasn't shy about talking about it (and Lybia and Syria) either. McCain campaigned with a lighthearted song about bombing Iran.
I think if Iraq hadn't gone to shit at around that time, Katrina hadn't damaged the GOP's reputation, and the 2008 crash hadn't happened, McCain would have been elected and immeitely started the war.
 
Captain Obvious said:
Im not talking about his supporters, im talking about everyone else (who are the majority)

The reason why i think he won't get a 2nd term is because of this:

Despite the enthusiasm and unwavering support from his followers, Trump managed to get roughly the same amount of votes as Mitt Romney, he only won because of the shitfest Clinton is, a lot of voters stayed away or voted for the Green party. Now the opposition have rallied, a lot of people who didn't vote and are starting to hate trump now are going out and winning it for the Dems in a lot of supposedly safe seats for Republicans.

This will reflect in 2020, the only things the Dems need to do is to find a candidate that will resonate with the voters like Obama or close to it. Biden is my most likely bet.

The midterms later this year will reflect this, if Dems manage to take the house then you can bet that Trump will lose in 2020
Click to expand...

To be fair it is possible that a good democratic candidate could force him out of the white house, I'd personally argue it's not creepy Joe though. I think it might be another 'shock' result myself.
 
berbatrick said:
IIRC the US did war games about an Iran invasion and the administration wasn't shy about talking about it (and Lybia and Syria) either. McCain campaigned with a lighthearted song about bombing Iran.
I think if Iraq hadn't gone to shit at around that time, Katrina hadn't damaged the GOP's reputation, and the 2008 crash hadn't happened, McCain would have been elected and immeitely started the war.
Click to expand...
Ah the famous Iran war game , where the US had to change the parameters of the game midway through because Iran ended up destroying the US fleet within a day.
 
Revan said:
Come on man, the only reasons that Trump is out of this deal are: 1) Obama signed it and Trump's policy is to undo everything Obama did; 2) Netanyahu asked him to do so; 3) this keeps the press out of Mueller's investigation.

It has nothing to do with Iran not keeping his part of the deal. Every agency (including Israelian one) said that Iran is keeping its deal.
Click to expand...

I would add in 4) Putin's influence and desire to isolate the US from its allies, ruin its diplomatic reputation and fuel his propaganda machine. Going back on this deal will be remembered and used against the US forever.

Trump isn't going to be in the White House for much longer, you can bet Putin is going to make the most of him while he can. He won't get this chance again.
 
Van Gaalacticos said:
I'm saying it's debatable whether they should have used them not if they used them, seriously?

So like I'm saying, Trump must have reason to think Obamas deal isn't working. How do we know for sure these experts don't have an agenda? Not saying they do but how can you be completely sure?
Click to expand...

Japan was alone in the war near to surrender, After Hiroshima that killed +100.000 civilians, surrender was a fact and then decided to bomb nagasaki +50.000 more civilians. The only ones that find debatable is the ones that feel guilty/support that only US should have nukes.

Completely sure? I am about nothing. Nobody has direct line in the WH here. Just reading the people that are close to him and republicans opinions about Iran. US Experts on the JCPOA says that Iran is complying the most strict surveillance and dismantling program ever from the international community inside a sovereign country and Trump pulls out? I don't know if he/them has/have an agenda, but certainly there was no reason for the US to pull out, specially when his allies still in and they support the JCPOA. Us broke not only the US trust but the western international community. Iran will not trust the west again
 
4bars said:
Japan was alone in the war near to surrender, After Hiroshima that killed +100.000 civilians, surrender was a fact and then decided to bomb nagasaki +50.000 more civilians. The only ones that find debatable is the ones that feel guilty/support that only US should have nukes.
Click to expand...

This is not accurate. Surrender was not a 'fact' after Hiroshima, there were still extremely strong elements of the Japanese government resisting calls to surrender.
 
What did Iran ever do to them exactly? What's with the hate?
 
2cents said:
What measures? I expect the US and its allies in the region to attempt to manipulate the current unrest in Iran through the weird MEK 'opposition-in-exile' group. I think it's probably begun already. There's gonna be a big push in the next year or two, as a range of forces have aligned - Israeli red lines in Syria being crossed, the rise of Muhammad bin Salman in Iran, and of course Trump himself. I get the feeling the Israelis and Saudis have decided enough is enough re:Iran and view the current climate as their best window of opportunity for taking down the regime. However, I think using the MEK is a ploy that is destined to fail.
Click to expand...
I don't know very much about MEK, but from what I know about anti-regime Iranians in general, I can't imagine such an obvious US ally to be remotely popular enough to achieve much. Sure, they can instigate stuff and hope it catches on, but the opposition-minded people in Iran generally seem quite informed on who's-doing-what, despite the constant censorship troubles. So I ask myself if there's really any optimism in US gov/CIA/military circles about this, and if so, why.
 
Synco said:
I don't know very much about MEK, but from what I know about anti-regime Iranians in general, I can't imagine such an obvious US ally to be remotely popular enough to achieve much. Sure, they can instigate stuff and hope it catches on, but the opposition-minded people in Iran generally seem quite informed on who's-doing-what, despite the constant censorship troubles. So I ask myself if there's really any optimism in US gov/CIA/military circles about this, and if so, why.
Click to expand...

I agree. Most people in the know judge the MEK to be despised inside Iran. I’m not sure exactly what Washington’s plans for the MEK might be. All I know is the group’s lobbying has been really amped up in recent years, they’re telling the right (or perhaps wrong) people exactly what they want to hear - people who are already predisposed to a certain approach to the Iranian question.
 
Kentonio said:
This is not accurate. Surrender was not a 'fact' after Hiroshima, there were still extremely strong elements of the Japanese government resisting calls to surrender.
Click to expand...

Bombing any other non populated area with that power blast would make the same effect. The non surrender part, IMO had been a historical lie from the west. Nukes were more a who has the biggest dick in the raising of the USSR
 
4bars said:
Bombing any other non populated area with that power blast would make the same effect. The non surrender part, IMO had been a historical lie from the west. Nukes were more a who has the biggest dick in the raising of the USSR
Click to expand...

None of the historical documentation or direct accounts support your argument. I’m a big critic of US foreign policy over the last 50 years or so, but this narrative you’re espousing isn’t factual.
 
Scarecrow said:
USA
Click to expand...

Broadly speaking, they’re a regime whose core goal is to put an end to US influence in the region and the wider Islamic world, and as they see it take back for the Muslims control of the region’s destiny which they believe will be shaped along Islamic lines (their interpretation of it anyway). This puts them at odds with the core American interest in the region - the safe and secure delivery of oil from the Persian Gulf to the wider world - and the alliances America has built to secure that interest - most notably with Saudi Arabia and Israel.

More specifically, American-Iranian relations have been soured by a series of episodes which has left them viewing each other as classic enemies - the overthrow of Mossadegh, US support for the Shah, the hostage crisis, the US stance in the Iran-Iraq war, and dozens of more minor kerfuffles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.