30 replies to this topic

[Tulac]

http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/4908048.stm

So they enriched uranium a day or so ago, they obviously understand (much like the US) that UN and it's demands don't mean anything...
So what is your opinion will the US(and possible allies) attack Iran, is WW 3 about to start maybe?

[Sebatianos]

Attack Iran? Nah, now that the US government has got it's claws on Iraq again, they'll just train new Sadam and have him go to a bloody local war with Iran for a decade or so, before this NEW Sadam decides to invade Kuwait... Sound familiar???

[Tulac]

Well methinks nuclear weapons able to reach Israel change things, and the fact that Irans military is much much stronger than it was 20 or so years ago...

[Blood-Pigggy]

I think this is the perfect time for conspiracy theorists.

[DannyMc252]

Just like every other time something large involving the US (or other country with nuclear abilities) government comes up...

No, they wont attack Iran. They're too messed up in Iraq for that.

[DeathDude]

One of the scenarios that has been played out as well is that the U.S would use short range nuclear missles to hit the factories, possibilty I suppose, but could the U.S go that far, hmm hard to say, even knowing the current regime.

[Juni Ori]

Okay, first of all (as partially mentioned above): US military forces are already using their best trained and equiped (which isn't so well as one might think) troops in Iraq. If they were to attack Iran, they needed a] massive propaganda in home to get people accept casualties b] massive propaganda in Europe to get foreign support - other than UK that is, and c] luck with Russia and China - no one wants to mess around with two major military forces.

Then they would, again, need to get air superiority and fast. This time casualties wouldn't be that catastrophic, unless they were highly trained and very expensive pilots who went down. Not to mention very expensive equipment. True that US has much more efficient air forces, but Iranians are a little different class than Iraqi.

Also we must remember that Iran is much more coherent and it hasn't been suppressed for last 10 years. Of course, limited warfare to aerial strikes might work, but who the hell wishes to leave the chance that not all of those plants were destroyed, if that is the reason why they attack. What about special forces? Yes, they might do some good on Iranian soil, but they would only decrease the chance.

Then no one surely knows how Middle East in general would react. There are quite some islamistic countries who just might join Iran in war and I can't blame them. Possibly the worst case scenario mentioned above, WW3, is a little exaggerated, but I don't think it's impossible. More like I see following scenario: limited conflict in Middle East, Western World "closes" its borders, but still terrorists get through. Who knows? Nobody. Even specialists give comments like: very likely, likely, possible, not likely, etc. Who can say what they mean? Can they themselves even?

Well, that's my analysis, without sufficient information, without intelligence agencies and heavily affected by both side propaganda... oh, sorry, I forgot that we in western world call it media. My bad.

In short: No attack to Iran before US forces can be taken away from Iraq. One good thing though: Iran has alot of borderline with Iraq... *goes studying maps for terrain*

Edit: Stupid smilies...

Edit2: Forgot to mention: DD, USA won't dare to use nuclear weapons first. Think about the implications in population, foreign relations, currency, etc...

Edited by Juni Ori, 14 April 2006 - 08:37 AM.

[Sebatianos]

Juni... I find your arguments very un-convincing.

Don't get me wrong, youre argumenting very well, but I've heard all of that before...

Just change the names a little and there you go (change Iraq with Afghanistan and change Iran with Iraq).

Those same arguments were said when people were asking is US going to attack Iraq... And we know how that one turned out.

[Juni Ori]

Okay, does this convince you:

Afghanistan
-population: 31,056,997
-military expenditures: $0,12 billion

Iran
-population: 68,688,433
-military expenditures: $4.3 billion

Iraq
-population: 26,783,383
-military expenditures: $1,34 billion

See what I mean? They are already trying to control 57,840,380 people, who had like half the military budget compared to Iran! And yes, you are in a way correct, it still has some very same kind of features, but would you believe that USA needs to get Afghanistan and Iraq taken care of first. They were both uncoherent, poorly equipped and armies had bad morale. Comparing to Iran: more coherent - though not united - far better equipped and army seems to have good morale. And iran has had it's propaganda campaign against USA for years...

Edit: Oh, I realized I need to mention something: Of course they don't need to take Iran over for long period, but think what gift it would be to enemy propaganda if US forces left Iran soon after they had "overtaken" it?

Edited by Juni Ori, 14 April 2006 - 08:58 AM.

[PrejudiceSucks]

And then the Iranians press on the attack and took Iraq too, making it into a non-secular state again. This would be bad.

[Stroggy]

What I find most confusing is Iran's reaction, instead of trying to downplay the US (and Europe, we mustn't forget that Europe is more involved in this conflict than in the Iraq conflict) it seems as if they are purposefully creating more suspicion, and their announcement of new weapons doesn't help either. What troubles Europe is Iran's claim of pursuing the creation of missiles capable of reaching Europe.

We must not forget the fact that many other muslim countries are wary of Iran. I find the idea of a coalition between Iran and other muslim countries unlikely as the conflict between Shi'a muslims and Sunni muslims is simply too great an obstacle, as Iraq demonstrates. They could, however, drum up support from Shi'a terrorist organizations throughout the middle east.

Quote

And then the Iranians press on the attack and took Iraq too, making it into a non-secular state again. This would be bad.

It isn't unlikely that Iran is already involved in Iraq in other ways.

[Tulac]

Yes, Iran is a much different target than either Iraq and Afghanistan, I mean Iran by itself is the 19th country in the world by GDP, not to mention how much of that goes into military...
I personally think that US will attack with aerial strikes, much like what they did in Serbia, trying to destabilize the country, which might lead to government change, because from what I've heard there's a strong anti government sentiment over there, but of course those air strikes could lead to the radicalization of people too...
Well in any case war never brings any good, I'm not saying it's good what they'll do, I'm just giving my predictions...

[Juni Ori]

Stroggy, on Apr 14 2006, 09:28 AM, said:

We must not forget the fact that many other muslim countries are wary of Iran. I find the idea of a coalition between Iran and other muslim countries unlikely as the conflict between Shi'a muslims and Sunni muslims is simply too great an obstacle, as Iraq demonstrates. They could, however, drum up support from Shi'a terrorist organizations throughout the middle east.

Quote

And then the Iranians press on the attack and took Iraq too, making it into a non-secular state again. This would be bad.

It isn't unlikely that Iran is already involved in Iraq in other ways.

One can only hope they don't turn their weapons against west when attacked, if USA attacks. Cooperation, no. Common enemy, yes. What I'm saying, they don't need to unite, they just need to fight against US forces. Separately or not. Still they might continue fighting each other, but I doubt it.

And most certainly Iran has her fingers in Iraq at the moment, trying to destabilize the situation.

Edit: Tulac, in case of fear of nuclear weapons production, government change would necessarily be enough. More likely they would aim for destruction of those weapon materiels and production plants.

Edited by Juni Ori, 14 April 2006 - 09:39 AM.

[Tulac]

Didin't Israel do that in Iraq some time ago, and by that way stop Iraqs nuclear program?

[Juni Ori]

Umm... I think it might be possible, if Iraq ever had nuclear program, which I can't recall... Hard to say, after all, because none of intelligence agencies usually gives any information about their grey ops, not to mention black ops.

Edit: Btw, does somebody remember what was Mossad's full name?

Edited by Juni Ori, 14 April 2006 - 09:51 AM.