Iran 2019

Jul 2012
3,111
Dhaka
#41
Also, keep in mind, Russia would not want a US-Friendly Iran either for numerous reasons.

There are a lot of pieces on the table in play here.

This is very dangerous stuff.

Unfortunately, the Iranian people could take the brunt of it.
Iran would never be allowed to become US-friendly ever; AIPAC would see to it.
 
Mar 2019
549
Kansas
#43
There will be no direct conflict (save conceivably as the result of accidental circumstances); there is no appetite whatever in the USA for a further military adventure in the area, it would so obviously have dangerous and unpredictable ramifications if attempted that it would never be adopted as American policy, and since it would be even more dangerous for the Iranians to get involved in conflict with a much greater military power they themselves would never initiate hostilities.
Yeah I think over the last 5 to 10 years they have been slowly winning the PR war. They appear to have stuck to their side of the treaty, something the EU seems ready to attest to. They really (publically) have not been acting like a rouge nation. My fear is Iran might become a proxy battle ground for the US Russia and China to play in :(
 
Dec 2015
3,468
USA
#44
20 Years of Republican and 16 Years of Democrat, Iran stays with the same stance and belligerence with US presidents seeing more information than we do once they assume office.

We have not started a war since Jan 2017 and I do not expect us to do so either (I have been hearing about the impending war with X,Y,Z that are yet to materialize, I will keep waiting for the next "Warning of impending war)

---
Bolton can want all he wants, a US-Friendly Iran is the last thing the terrorism source of the world (gulf states) would want, their heads would explode at the sight of a US-Friendly and strong Shia-State.

Iran can make the choice of becoming a US friendly nations as a strategic move to undercut the gulf states but they do not think that way because Islamism come first to them.
Its more about money and power then religion one could say. Similar with how the USA works with Saudi Arabia and Israel imo its not based on morals. Many of those religious clerics have expensive sports cars and watches, its an issue among some Muslim Imams and Catholic Bishops.
 
May 2018
646
Michigan
#45
Unlike Iraq in 2003, there can be no argument that Iran is not pursuing "weapons of mass destruction."

Just make sure that:

-If you oppose military action, it isn't based on a media-hyped hatred of President Trump. Or because you're generally anti-war or afraid of going to war for reasons of cowardice as opposed to principle.
-If you support military action, you actually have some idea of what war with Iran would mean in terms of casualties, both for American service members and Iranian civilians. Full-scale regime change and at least three decades of occupation will cost trillions of dollars and at least 25,000 casualties for U.S. Forces, and probably 500,000 casualties for Iranian civilians (Iranian military casualties are a non-concern).

We should have no more talk of force being the "last possible resort." That is stupid: if force is the last resort, then by definition surrender or U.S. capitulation is an option before war. I would urge policymakers to recall the words of B.H. Liddell-Hart:

The goal in war, as it is in peace, is a more perfect peace.

Is war with Iran going to achieve our strategic goals? If so, what is the scale of military action to be considered, and are those strategic goals worth the cost. Can a more perfect peace be achieved via nonmilitary means? It bothers me that most of the people on both sides are stupid: pro-war people rail for war against Iran without much thought to military reality. And anti-war people either simply hate Trump for whatever reason, are cowards, or have an ideological opposition to war to such an extent that WWII is considered unjustified. Some unfortunate few put the "pathetic" in "sympathetic" and actually support Islamofascism and the murder of homosexuals.

We should also be realistic about Iran's cooperation on any treaty, deal or what have you: these are only as strong as the armies enforcing them and the willingness to use violence to ensure Iran's adherence. There should be no talk of "red lines" or "peace in our time" unless we are prepared to enforce agreements with force if necessary.

To be honest, I think Iran is largely blustering: they know that in any military confrontation with the United States, they will lose, and lose badly. Belligerence, "scimitar-rattling", and other stupidity will only lead to Iran's peril. The United States Army has almost twenty years of experience fighting in desert conditions, against brainwashed Muslim fanatics (which Iran is not, I'll grant that). This is in addition to the US's superiority in tech, training and general troop quality.

The "most perfect peace" is Iran demolishing its nuclear program, or agreeing to only pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes under the observation of UN or NATO inspectors with unlimited access. Further, Iran adopts liberal western values as far as is possible for a pacified Iranian regime to maintain power.

The "most realistic peace" is Iran backing down amid strong U.S. pressure and the conflict essentially being "tabled" for the future.

The "worst case scenario" is a force-on-force conflict erupting, causing a series of alliances to trigger a "Home-made-explosive keg" plunging the entire region into war without any Great Power involvement, leading to a modern WWI situation of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey against most other powers in the region (assuming Iraq sits things out for whatever reason). This worst-case scenario (which would probably involve nuclear weapons) is highly unlikely, as the U.S. would probably support its allies.

However, if war with Iran starts, I'm probably going back in the Army, even if I personally oppose the circumstances of such war. The only thing worse than the U.S. being involved in the wrong war is the U.S. losing any war.
 
Last edited:
May 2015
1,033
The Netherlands
#46
The plot thickens:

No increased threat from Iran-backed forces, anti-ISIS coalition leader says


Washington (CNN) The deputy commander of the US-led military coalition against ISIS said Tuesday "there has been no increased threat from Iranian backed forces in Iraq and Syria."

UK Major Gen. Chris Ghika told Pentagon reporters that the Iran-backed groups are one of many threats faced by the coalition, but said there has been no increase in the dangers they pose. Unnamed US officials have said there has been an increased threat from Iran and Iranian-backed forces against US forces in the Middle East, including Iraq and Syria.

"There are a range of threats to American and coalition forces in Iraq and Syria," Ghika said. "We monitor them all. Iranian backed forces is clearly one of them and I am not going to go into the detail of it, but there are a substantial number of militia groups in Iraq and Syria and we don't see an increased threat from many of them at this stage."

Ghika was speaking to Pentagon reporters from Baghdad as tensions between the US and Iran have spiked in recent weeks.

However, US Central Command, which oversees US military operations in the Middle East, issued a rare statement later Tuesday, pushing back on Ghika's comments just hours after his news conference from Baghdad.

[...]

No increased threat from Iran-backed forces, anti-ISIS coalition leader says - CNNPolitics
 

M9Powell

Ad Honorem
Oct 2014
4,385
appalacian Mtns
#47
Full-scale regime change and at least three decades of occupation will cost trillions of dollars and at least 25,000 casualties for U.S. Forces, and probably 500,000 casualties for Iranian civilians (Iranian military casualties are a non-concern).
.
The U.S. Armed forces typically achieve a kill ratio of 10-100 too1. And that's enemy combatants not collateral civilian casualties. The Warthawg will get a lot of them, brrrt. What the A-10s don't get the Apaches will, won't be much left but mopping up for the ground pounders.
 
Last edited:
May 2018
646
Michigan
#48
The U.S. Armed forces typically achieve a kill ratio of 10-100 too1. And that's enemy combatants not collateral civilian casualties. The Warthawg will get a lot of them, brrrt. What the A-10s don't get the Apaches will, won't be much left but mopping up for the ground pounders.
Agreed, and no doubt our forces totally outclass anything Iran can throw our way. We will be operating with (likely) complete air superiority.

The Iranians, if we go "full regime change", will employ a Fabian strategy. Their strategic objective will be similar to ours in the American Revolution: make the war unsustainable politically and militarily so the U.S. eventually 'gives up.' We can see similar tactics that we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan, except with the power of an organized nation state behind them led by a government in exile.

What bothers me is that the Iranians may not act rationally: their economy is suffering greatly, unemployment is up and inflation is at historically high levels (for Iran). I believe the current saber rattling is not only related to the sanctions, but also a way of maintaining domestic support. I support the sanctions: they have made a tangible dent in Iran's nuclear program. However, we must be prepared to pay the requisite price of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state: we must be willing to take any action, up to and including regime change at a cost of thousands of American military and Iranian civilian lives.
 
May 2018
646
Michigan
#49
There will be no direct conflict (save conceivably as the result of accidental circumstances); there is no appetite whatever in the USA for a further military adventure in the area, it would so obviously have dangerous and unpredictable ramifications if attempted that it would never be adopted as American policy, and since it would be even more dangerous for the Iranians to get involved in conflict with a much greater military power they themselves would never initiate hostilities.
One can only hope. A war between Iran and the USA is in the interest of neither country. However, with historically high inflation rates, high unemployment, and irrational statements by Iran regarding Israel and the U.S., I wouldn't rely on rationality to rule the day, particularly in Iran.
 

Similar History Discussions