Jump to content
tanknet.org

Coming Conflict With Iran


Recommended Posts

Tonight during the Gingrich/Huntsman debate, Amb. Huntsman stated that it is likely that within 5 years, Israel will come to the President with a declaration of intent to strike Iranian nuclear program targets, with an invitation to the US to either join or stay out of the way. Use of Israeli nuclear assets might be an option.

 

Frankly this is coming down the pike at us, and we are going to have to fish or cut bait. Israel doesn't have the option of cutting bait, the survival of Judaism is on the line. Does the US join the conflict with Israel? Does Israel go nuclear in the absence of US support? How does Iran respond? Can we in fact take on Iran militarily? This ain't Iraq, it's a whole nuther kettle of fish. What happens to the world economy when the price of crude skyrockets?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The conflict is already going, as anyone who reads the news can see. Since there are no territorial gains to be have, it's going to remain low key, with an explosion here, a rocket there, until the Iranians get the bomb or desist. In the first case, nothing is likely to happen as they will find the maths their predecessors had found:

 

Us: one bomb

Them: hundreds.

 

End result, lots of them less, none of us alive at the end.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all of this is nicely positioned. Iran doesn't have to build one, only have the ability to build it, and they become the regional big boy. Iraq is tamed and very nicely placed. Kuwait and Saudi are in good positions, and not happy at all about Iran. Syria is busy making a fine mess of things in their own backyard, stirring the pot a little more with some fine tension at the neighbors house.

 

I smell sales and deals... cha-ching. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JamesG123

I smell sales and deals... cha-ching. ;)

 

Pretty much. And on all sides.

 

Iranian machinations and support for the Palestinians is being used as leverage by the Israeli lobby to keep aid and support coming from DC.

 

The intractable Arab-Israeli\Israel-Palestine problem is a useful stage for the Iranians to gain prestige in the ME. Having an external threat distracts the public from domestic economic and social issues and rallys them around the leadership.

 

The ol' Arsenal of Democracy needs to keep the lights on.

 

 

I recall the same gnashing of teeth over the North Koreans development and testing of a nuclear capacity. Yet, asides from the usual ass-hattery, nothing has really changed in the strategic situation there. Likewise its unlikely that the Iranians would nuke Israel, directly or via a surrogate, because if they did "nuke the joos into the sea", there goes their influence over Palestinian militant groups, who are probably going to be disappointed with reclaiming radioactive territory (not to mention Iran itself is downwind too), and the rest of the world is going to come down on Tehran like the proverbial avenging angel.

 

Its being developed as a bargaining chip, and in there is why the Israelis/US are working to undermine them. To maintain the status quo of their power dominance, nothing more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'...because if they did "nuke the joos into the sea", there goes their influence over Palestinian militant groups..."

--JamesG123

There go the Palestinians also, solving two problems for the 'Arab leadership'...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The conflict is already going, as anyone who reads the news can see. Since there are no territorial gains to be have, it's going to remain low key, with an explosion here, a rocket there, until the Iranians get the bomb or desist.

 

There's a 3rd, though very unlikely option. If the Iranians can orchestrate another pan-Arab coalition and get it to commit suicide a la 1967. It would both weaken Israel and Iran's Arab peers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Iranians are not the "Arab Leadership" in fact they are rivals to them.

Good point. Still, if the Pals got vaporized along with the Jews, there would be few tears shed off-camera by the Iranians either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a 3rd, though very unlikely option. If the Iranians can orchestrate another pan-Arab coalition and get it to commit suicide a la 1967. It would both weaken Israel and Iran's Arab peers.

 

Iranians being able to orchestrate that would be unlikely.

 

Iranians not only being non-Arabs but religiously Shias to the boot...they hate each other almost as much as US infidels..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point. Still, if the Pals got vaporized along with the Jews, there would be few tears shed off-camera by the Iranians either.

 

I think IDF *might* have different view....and the will to take all region with them... So not my favourite scenario...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JamesG123

But then, absent Israel, guess whose problem they become?

 

Saudi Arabia?

 

I would be more nervous if I were a neighboring state than had any Shia population least Iran try their own Sudatenland gambit.

 

IMO an expansionist adventure is much more likely (but still remote) than they nuking Israel for fun and Allah.

Edited by JamesG123
Link to post
Share on other sites

Saudi Arabia?

 

I would be more nervous if I were a neighboring state than had any Shia population least Iran try their own Sudatenland gambit.

 

Uh oh..that'd mean you want to withdraw US precence from Middle East...otherwise Iranians would be able and willing to hurt USA. Since I don't quite see "strategic alliance" between Great Satan and Iran......:unsure:

They'd still be baying for blood...and running isolationist..well...can try.

Edited by Sardaukar
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JamesG123

Uh oh..that'd mean you want to withdraw US precence from Middle East...otherwise Iranians would be able and willing to hurt USA.

 

How about a step back so that the US wasn't a direct participant in regional affairs, and contesting regional power dominance for nebulous reasons (just because we could?), did not pose an immediate threat to Iran etc?

 

Since I don't quite see "strategic alliance" between Great Satan and Iran.

 

Yes, that bridge got burnt in 1979.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...because if they did "nuke the joos into the sea", there goes their influence over Palestinian militant groups...

 

So they shed tears over losing influence over Palestinian militant employed against Israel if Israel disappears? Is that logical?

 

How about a step back so that the US wasn't a direct participant in regional affairs, and contesting regional power dominance for nebulous reasons (just because we could?), did not pose an immediate threat to Iran etc?

 

Putting your wrong morals and civilizational solidarity aside...

If you think US retires from scene and don't loose you are sorely mistaken. Those Horses who don't play the game loose.

The loss of Israel is not only a loss of a culture is much more than that. It will be a start of free for all new ride. Nuke bombs will be developed everywhere.

This will lead potentially a start of a World War because then the loss of confidence in international relation system will make everyone very nervous and many bad types very arrogant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuke bombs will be developed everywhere.

 

Like India? oh, wait...

Pakistan? oh, wait...

North Korea? oh, wait...

South Africa? oh, wait...

Brazil? oh, wait...

 

That genie is already out of the bottle already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the Israelis stop with their obsession of an Iranian nuke and start focusing on more pressing matters. An Iran with nukes is more of a threat to the Arab countries than it is to Israel. Did nuclear weapons stop Hamas and Hezbullah from launching attacks against Israel? Nope. Will nuclear weapons leave Iran completely invincible and have the authority to do anything it wants? Nope.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is the possiblity of both the Israelis and Persians understanding the concept of mutual destruction. So upon Iran declaring it's nuclear stockpile, the Israelis will publicly show theirs. And now we're all even. Both countries are too small to survive a nuclear strike or retaliation.

 

What about the possibility of the Iranians moving nukes into terrorist hands? Kind of risky considering they're not exactly liked in the Middle East. Giving Hezbola small arms and rockets is one thing... Nukes another. Todays friends kind of tend to be tomorrow's enemeny in that part of the world. And Israel may simply declare that it will flatten Iran with Nukes if attacked with Nukes regardless of where it came from.

 

I'm just hoping for a nuke arms race.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JamesG123

Because it will get back to them. Beyond the fact that Iran would be the first of a short list of suspects, all of the fizzile material in the world (including Irans) has a specific isotope "fingerprint" that indicates its point of origin, one of the few things Clancy got right in "Sum of all Fears".

 

 

So they shed tears over losing influence over Palestinian militant employed against Israel if Israel disappears? Is that logical?

 

In hardball geopolitics it is. If the Palestinians "win" they don't need the Iranians anymore, and so won't bend to their will such as the spy vs. spy shinanigans in Lebanon recently.

 

Putting your wrong morals and civilizational solidarity aside...

 

I'm being objective.

 

If you think US retires from scene and don't loose you are sorely mistaken.

 

"Looses" what?

 

This will lead potentially a start of a World War because then the loss of confidence in international relation system will make everyone very nervous and many bad types very arrogant.

 

Sorry, we're broke. No more adventures in other peoples affairs for you.

Maybe you should ask the Chinese if they want to play World Police for a while? Maybe the German government since they think they have the answers and money for everything...

Link to post
Share on other sites

We also have to remember: Iran is not totally isolated in terms of external support.

 

A repeat of the Iraq invasion of 2003 is very unlikely, because the world situation is now so different. Back then, Russia was willing to go along, and China basically had no choice. In practical terms, these nations, and others, saw nothing to be gained from opposing America's will in the Middle East.

 

In 2012, you have a proud Bear that's distrustful of American and West European policy, and a voraciously hungry Dragon that needs the Middle East's oil to flow.

 

Neither of these nations are going to stand on the sidelines as their interests in the Persian Gulf and the wider region are hurt.

 

Then there are the other developing nations of the world, many in the "G-20". They don't wish to see their trade with Iran cut. These countries will make any economic siege of Iran almost impossible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We also have to remember: Iran is not totally isolated in terms of external support.

 

A repeat of the Iraq invasion of 2003 is very unlikely, because the world situation is now so different. Back then, Russia was willing to go along, and China basically had no choice. In practical terms, these nations, and others, saw nothing to be gained from opposing America's will in the Middle East.

 

In 2012, you have a proud Bear that's distrustful of American and West European policy, and a voraciously hungry Dragon that needs the Middle East's oil to flow.

 

Neither of these nations are going to stand on the sidelines as their interests in the Persian Gulf and the wider region are hurt.

 

Then there are the other developing nations of the world, many in the "G-20". They don't wish to see their trade with Iran cut. These countries will make any economic siege of Iran almost impossible.

 

 

Well we will not have use of airfields in the Gulf States or Iraq most likely, if the conflict is painted as one to save Israel. The Arabs don't like the Iranians and don't want them to have nukes, but supporting a war against Muslims on behalf of Jews would be utterly political suicide in their countries. Iraq would sit this one out too. Frankly, even Diego Garcia may or may not be available to us, depending how the UK feels about how things are going. Logistically, a ground invasion of Iran would be a bitch. There won't be any mass buildup of troops for a blitzkrieg across the border, you're looking at a major forcible entry onto the coast to seize port facilities, and then bring follow on forces in by sea and air. The terrain is nasty and hilly in places, good for ambushes and dogged defenders. The Chinese have already rattled their sabers over Iranian security, and the Russians are a big question mark.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...