Pelranius wrote:What about scenarios in which Israel or someone else tries to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program?
I attended a lecture about two years ago given by a former journalist/editor of the Jerusalem Post (I think) who claimed that this is exactly what most of the Arab states wanted to have happen. If Israel blows up the Iranian Nuclear enrichment centers, the Arab people will scream and the Arab states will formally protest publicly, but behind the scenes they wont do anything because the possible Iranian Nuclear threat has been neutered and their happy little status quo has been maintained. Hezbollah and Iran's other proxies will throw a shit fit the likes of which you have never seen, but Israel can weather that and (as far as they're concerned) they'd be better off afterwards. I don't fully buy his cheery position, nor the fact that the Arab states would be happy with the scenario (though they all stood by silently when the same thing happened to Syria), but it is plausible.
In short: There'd be all the illusion of a massive shitstorm without the actual presence of one.
That said, considering the decentralized nature of the Iranian nuclear enrichment centers and their hardened nature there's no guarantee that a Osiriak style mission is even viable. Much less that it would get Obama's necessary nod of approval. But Joe Biden has seemed to give an acknowledgment of the possibility, and the Saudis may not mind
Riiiiiiight. The fact that Iran backed a Shiite militia that was formed in 1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon is proof of Iran's
aggressive nature. I guess the mullahs forced Aryan Sharon to invade, just so their fiendish Fu Manchu plot could be carried out.
The fact that they formed a Shiite militia, organized it with their Revolutionary Guards, had it target American Marines in their Beirut barracks, helped it kidnap foreign citizens, diplomats and journalists, and then continued to back it well after its initial pretext disappeared down to the present day. Iran has been its primary supplier of all things (and proudly said as such publicly) and encouraged it in all of its Revolutionary activities and its terrorist actions against Israel.
That would make Boston and New York aggressive states, since the IRA gets much of their support among Americans and they do the exact same things (bombings, assassinations, attacks on embassies and diplomats).
Only in your strange little world is a city having a large population that makes donations to unsavory groups synonymous with State-sponsored Terrorism. Perhaps you have proof that Ed Koch was the one who orchestrated the IRA assassination attempts on Margaret Thatcher? Or maybe you're just pulling non-sequiturs out of your ass.
But the US has invaded many countries and killed off millions of people. Actions -not words- are what matter. As far as actions are concerned, the Iranians haven't invaded their neighbors and support for "terrorists" is something many other countries do as well -yet there's none of this kind of concern-trolling over them.
"They're just as bad as a lot of other unsavory nations. That makes them alright in my world!" Tell me, which side of the street do they drive on in your little world? I'm ever so curious.
No, dishonesty is trying to paint the Iranian Army's pursuit of Saddam Hussein's forces back across the border as aggression on the part of Iran. I guess the US Navy was the aggressor in WW2 when they sank the Japanese ships at Midway, right?
See, I agree with you in part. This is exactly why I discounted their invasion of Iraq in '82 in my post. But since you brought it up, let's explore their actions in the Iran-Iraq War!
When Iraq invaded in 1980 Iran declared that it would fight back and defend its territorial sovreigneity, and made this the core of its war aims and public statements. Then in 1982 they kicked the last Iraqi soldier off of Iranian soil and paused. The Iraqis, and all the Arab states, were terrified of Iran moving west. Khomeini had been preaching a revolutionary ideology that refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Arab Monarchies, and directly called for the Shia populations of Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain and others to rise up against their rulers and establish Islamic Governments. The Arabs didn't want to have to deal with this. So the Saudis went to Iran and offered them a deal: The Iraqis would recognize the validity of the 1975 Algiers Accords regarding the Shatt Al-Arab (whose 'illegitimacy' was Iraq's purported casus belli), would admit tacit fault for the war and would partially demobilize on the Iranian border, and the Saudis would hand over seventy Billion dollars in reparations to Iran, more than enough to cover the damages the Iranians suffered and have plenty extra left over for Economic reconstruction.
Khomeini considered this, and then declared that the war would go on until Iranian troops were in Jerusalem, and that they'd get to Jerusalem through Karbala. He then declared that he would unseat the Iraqi government and replace it with a Islamic government, and would do the same to all the other countries who got between him and Jerusalem, and woe betide anyone who stood with Iraq in this!
These are not the actions of "one of the least aggressive countries on the planet." These are the actions of an aggressive government bent on overthrowing its neighbors and replacing them with pliant states made in Iran's own image, and saying exactly that
Sure it is. We withdrew from Vietnam and not a single American soldier has been killed there since.
Possibly the most egregious non-sequitur I've seen in the recent months on this board!
Let's see you try this again. This time, however, answer with something germane to the subject at hand.
You have it backwards. In the unlikely event that Iran does make a few A-bombs, they will no longer be held hostage by us.
You will, of course, be able demonstrate how we're holding them hostage right now with our Nuclear arsenal.
Best to sanction the regime's leaders and offer incentives for shutting down production of their nuclear enrichment plans (as Russia has done in the past) than let them develop unopposed the capability to destroy places like Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE or Israel.
Axis Kast is so much better at spewing this kind of bullshit than you are. Israel has hundreds
of nukes and is more than capable of defending itself. The other countries you just mentioned couldn't fight off a conventional attack from their larger neighbors either. So Iran should forfeit all its armed forces, by your harebrained logic.
I see the game you're trying to play, and I'll have none of it. There are four nations listed up there as directly threatened by Iran. These are all nations which have had their legitimacy not just questions but downright denounced by Iranian leaders in the past (including Khamenei), and who have been victims of Iranian propaganda and direct threats. When you add a response as to how, in your little fantasy world, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the UAE are not at risk if the Iranians have Nuclear weapons, then you will have earned a proper response. Until then, begone Troll!
Degan wrote:But we do. They threaten Kuwait, and we threaten, quite credibly, to return the favour if they carry out their threat. They've already seen what resulted from the last attempt to threaten (or conquer) Kuwait. Again, actually using a nuclear weapon would remove any restraint against attacking Iran and they find themselves under the gun —and if they had only one device to begin with, they'd have absolutely nothing to use for a counter-response. So what would it gain them to even attempt it?
We do have a counter threat, but it's not very easily wielded.
Case in point: The UAE. There's a territorial dispute between Iran and the UAE going back decades to centuries (depending on who you ask) over three little Islands you and I could play badminton across to the west of the Strait of Hormuz called Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb. If Iran goes to the UAE and says that unless the UAE formally renounces sovereignty over the Islands the Iranian Pasdaran speed boats and coast guard will start harassing ships under the Emirates flag, and forcing them away from the Island. Further, Iran could say, any ship that strays too close or any attempt to send a military vessel to guard UAE shipping would be taken as a hostile military action which Iran may respond to, with the fullest possible force.
The UAE couldn't stand up to Iran's threat, and one Nuclear Explosion along its coast would utterly destroy it. Now the United States might take an active view on this, but the UAE is faced with two things:
1. It has no guarantee that the United States would be willing to risk anything in a shooting war. The UAE has no treaty guarantee on this matter, and even with a treaty there's no guarantee the United States would act on it. Obama doesn't exactly have a mandate for wider involvement in the Middle East, and most Americans wouldn't exactly be lock, stock and barrel behind a war defending a tiny Middle Eastern country most of them have never so much as heard of. (Never mind any preemptive action, or action over tiny Islands in the Strait.) And the UAE knows this.
2. Even if it has a Treaty guarantee, what use is it to the UAE? If Iran does go Nuclear against the UAE, the Sheikhs are essentially dead or ruined. Nuking Tehran wont exactly help you if you're in the grave.
Credible retaliatory threat against the U.S. or Russia? Not a chance —they're not even going to have an arsenal up to India's level for a decade or two if that, nevermind one that could challenge either superpower on anything approaching equal terms. Against Europe? Britain and France could destroy Iran and Europe is also under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Again, they gain nothing from tossing threats except to find themselves keyed into our targeting solutions.
Iran doesn't need to challenge any Western nation on equal terms. It just needs a credible Nuclear surge capacity. Then it can threaten to obliterate the nations I've listed above in one go and throw its weight around far above its current punching capacity. As for the West, a surge capacity lets it say to, for instance, Gordon Brown "Sure you're willing to take a stand on this. But are you willing to commit the UK to this? Are you really willing to risk London for Dubai, Bahrain or Abu Dhabi?" That wont be a popular line in the West.
And there's no will for preemptive action in the Middle East. Especially not over Weapons of Mass Destruction in a country that begins with 'Ira'.
That being said, there's a solution of sorts. First, widespread sanctions against the Iranian leadership organized by the U.N. and enforced by all E.U. member states and the other major democratic powers. Second, withdrawal of Ambassadors from Iran by the EU and other nations in protest over the Iranian election
and its treatment of foreign nationals. Third, the U.S. could organize a local security bloc akin to the 1991 Damascus Declaration. A mutual-defense pact between the Arab states would give them a united, and very intimidating, front against the Iranians, and would help a great deal to stabilize the region. Moreover the U.S. is in a perfect position to encourage this with its position in Iraq. Finally, there's always the Osiriak option.
'After 9/11, it was "You're with us or your with the terrorists." Now its "You're with Straha or you support racism."' ' - The Romulan Republic
'You're a bully putting on an air of civility while saying that everything western and/or capitalistic must be bad, and a lot of other posters (loomer, Stas Bush, Gandalf) are also going along with it for their own personal reasons (Stas in particular is looking through rose colored glasses)' - Darth Yan