Iran vs the US Thread

[Dooom35796821595]

There could be a way to limit ownership of nuclear weapons back to the original 5, just use the UN and hold the relevant P5 member responsible for the actions of their proxy, and charge them with denuclearisation. China for North Korea, Russia for Iran, America for Israil ect. India and Pakistan would be a tougher, but that’s a separate issue.

It would probably good for world peace if the proliferation of nuclear weapons be limited as much as possible, since they do have actually the potential to destroy our civilization. I agree with you that in a ideal world only the P5 should have nukes, but that train has passed imo.

Not yet, the idea I suggested could still be utilised since it would have the stubborn three (USA, China, Russia) each take responsibility for disarming their own proxy, persuading each of them with the fact that the other two will do the same. Then you can get Pakistan and India to commit to unilateral disarmament with a unified carrot/stick UNSC policy.

[Vetalia]

So you basically want to bomb Iran every 40ish years? After all, Iran's hostility towards the U.S. is very much justified, and any action against Iran will only fuel said hostility, causing an endless loop of destruction and construction up till the point where U.S. hegemony has come to an end.

Don't worry, Vietnam draft dodgerJohn Bolton knows that the Iranian people will welcome the American forces imposing a new government on them and will be dancing in the streets. In fact, he's committed to sending other people to die to make it happen!

Thank God Trump reigned that asshole in, his death can't come soon enough. Why he appointed him to anything is a mystery but I suspect it's kind of a keep your friends close and enemies closer deal.

[US-SSR]

It's a bit speculative to say "the US" is considering war with Iran. The rootinest, tootinest, shootinest, Putinest National Security Advisor west, east, north or south of the Pecos John Bolton may be considering it; but he has no authority to order troops around. The Pentagon may have some plans laying around somewhere but most of their military, if not civilian, leadership is smart enough to realize what a fiasco it would be. Individual-1 has no taste for more foreign involvement, if his public statements are to be believed. For his part Pompeo ordered mandatory evacuation of Embassy Baghdad in the face of, well, whatever threats there might be, a step that wasn't taken during the darkest days of the Iraq unpleasantness when there were rockets, bombs and bullets flying about the Green Zone like so much confetti.

So what we have imo is this corrupt, venal, callous, feckless administration -- once again -- showing its disorganization and inability to the world, with senior officials spouting off belligerantly and the Colluder in Chief careening between spinning up his most deplorable supporters and being nice to his man crush Vladimir while any adults in the room lift their eyebrows at each other wondering how to stave off the chaos.

At some risk of repeating myself: every day this administration remains in office the US grows weaker and its adversaries stronger. Trying to gin up a latter-day Gulf of Tonkin incident without the resources to back it up is not helping, not at all.

[Bear Stearns]

Where are George Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, and Hank Paulson when you need them?

[Zhivotnoye]

So you basically want to bomb Iran every 40ish years? After all, Iran's hostility towards the U.S. is very much justified, and any action against Iran will only fuel said hostility, causing an endless loop of destruction and construction up till the point where U.S. hegemony has come to an end.



I'm sure we are

When did we last bomb Iran? We sank a few ships and accidentally shot down a plane but did not bomb them. And they started that by attacking Kuwaiti ships.
But the quickly fell into line at little cost to us, that was a successful operation, although the shoot down was a unfortunate tragedy.

And the coup argument is BS because the Clerics SUPPORTED the coup too!
Which is ironic. The clerics blaming us for supporting a coup they also supported.
Which shows what liars they are.
Actually that coup saw us on the same side.

And Carter working to topple the Shah and back Khomeini benefited the clerics too!
So what are they bitching about exactly?
We supported them in two coups but okay.

Plus although we supported the coup we did not start it nor cause the conditions that caused it.

Anyways a bombing every 40 years is easily affordable.

But again I am NOT saying we bomb them for no reason.
I am simply saying we be ready to respond if they attack us or our allies.
That is all, again what is so controversial about that?

You answered the question yourself, you sank a few ships and shot down a plane (which was by no means an accident). Oh and no, Iran did not start that. The 'tanker war' started when Iraq attempted to block Iran's oil shipments by bombing tankers heading to/from Iran. Iran retaliated by doing the exact same. As a major supporter of the agressor the U.S. found that Iran was more successful than Iraq in taking down oil shipments, and thus decided to protect the shipments from/to Iraq. The operation of the U.S. was indeed successful, which is a shame looking back on it.

Yes, the clerics supported the coup of 1953 as well, though unlike the U.S., they also supported the one in 1979. Yes, Carter had contact with Khomeini, but there was no U.S. support whatsoever for the Iranian people against the Shah, If anything, it merely prevented a counter coup (although that's still up for debate), and on top of that the U.S. had ignored previous calls of Khomeini which dated back as early as 1963, proving the U.S. never cared till it was too late.
When the U.S. decided to protect the Shah from facing trial in Iran it equally decided that hostility was the way forward.

Self-defense is not controversial, as long as it's an appropriate form of self-defense. I miss this so far in your argumentation.
Nevertheless, Iran won't start a war, not unless war becomes inevitable.

So you basically want to bomb Iran every 40ish years? After all, Iran's hostility towards the U.S. is very much justified, and any action against Iran will only fuel said hostility, causing an endless loop of destruction and construction up till the point where U.S. hegemony has come to an end.

Don't worry, Vietnam draft dodgerJohn Bolton knows that the Iranian people will welcome the American forces imposing a new government on them and will be dancing in the streets. In fact, he's committed to sending other people to die to make it happen!

Thank God Trump reigned that asshole in, his death can't come soon enough. Why he appointed him to anything is a mystery but I suspect it's kind of a keep your friends close and enemies closer deal.

Let's hope so.

[Nakena]

Where are George Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, and Hank Paulson when you need them?

Ah the failures who fucked up everything due their false, hypocrite teachings, treasonous sellouts, and very likely blowing that one chance we had in our generation to set things right but instead choose Enduring Freedom rather than Infinite Justice?

[Sidesh0w B0b]

Where are George Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, and Hank Paulson when you need them?

Ah the failures who fucked up everything due their false, hypocrite teachings, treasonous sellouts, and very likely blowing that one chance we had in our generation to set things right but instead choose Enduring Freedom rather than Infinite Justice?

Yep. Half of them are probably lounging around Dubai in extreme luxury. The others are at least rolling around in the money, save one. Ashcroft is dead. Ashes are still burning brightly from their escapades. Damn them all.

[Nakena]

Ah the failures who fucked up everything due their false, hypocrite teachings, treasonous sellouts, and very likely blowing that one chance we had in our generation to set things right but instead choose Enduring Freedom rather than Infinite Justice?

Yep. Half of them are probably lounging around Dubai in extreme luxury. The others are at least rolling around in the money, save one. Ashcroft is dead. Ashes are still burning brightly from their escapades. Damn them all.

If only.

My bets would be with some resting and retirement places in and around Virginia and Maryland surbubs and giving guest lectures at some obscure Colleges or being on final storage siding in supervisory boards of equally obscure think thonks companies.

They're way too timid and mediocre to life the high luxury life with hookers and blackjack.

[Thermodolia]

Iran learned from the Iraq War. They aren't going to make the same mistakes. They could turn it into the next Vietnam and I don't want to be conscripted into it. While I think Iran's government is a horrific abomination bombing the shit out of it isn't going to make it better. US track records for "installing Democracy" is a resounding: 0 Stable Democracies to Millions of Dead Civilians Killed By Corrupt And Extremist Governments installed By The US.

We never should install democracies. We need to let the people do that themselves

[Zhivotnoye]

I started to wonder after talking about this escalation with my boss. The U.S. has a lot of military bases around the region there, but how many countries would actually grant the U.S. permission to use said bases for an attack on Iran? I'd imagine a lot of those nations are not exactly in the mood to become targets themselves, as would be the case if they allowed the U.S. to use those bases for the war.

Also, can't you guys in the U.S. make a rule or something that forces Bolton and Pompeo to stand in the frontline if you go to war against Iran? (If possible not them fighting there, but just them standing there in the open. Don't want to run the risk of them surviving it in any way possible)

[Danubia-Slavia]

I understand Iran isn't the best country out there but I think war would be a bit extreme.

From what I've heard, American intel pointed to the possibility that Iran would engage US forces in the Middle-East. I am a bit skeptical of this intel, why you might ask? Well... who in their right mind would want to start a war against the US other than China or Russia? Iran on it' s own would be suicide.

Yes, I do think we should deploy more troops to cover our guys there, but we should not attack unless attacked. The last thing we need is another endless war in the Middle-East. In fact, I personally think we pull out all troops from there except in Israel and just let them have their irl battle royale. Middle-East was never our business anyhow, if they wanna live in a perpetual hell hole let them.

[Caracasus]

Iran would be a very different war than Iraq. Iran has a better equipped and trained army, geography that gives them a real advantage and powerful allies who would be far more willing to stick their necks out for them in defense of their own interests in the area.

We can quickly discount 'spreading freedom and democracy' as it's become increasingly hard for any US administration to say that with a straight face.

Any serious war with Iran would go badly for Iran, but far, far worse for the US and the middle east.

[Infected Mushroom]

Have you ever considered working for British counter intelligence/military policy analysis think tanks?

I’m always taken aback by the level of cold but very precise razor sharp mindwork that goes behind these posts especially as they relate to military and political matters

I'm studying policy and haven't particularly picked a field yet, but am intending to go into policy as it impacts men. No particular reason not to have other specialities over time though.

I see...

[Nakena]

Iran would be a very different war than Iraq. Iran has a better equipped and trained army, geography that gives them a real advantage and powerful allies who would be far more willing to stick their necks out for them in defense of their own interests in the area.

We can quickly discount 'spreading freedom and democracy' as it's become increasingly hard for any US administration to say that with a straight face.

Any serious war with Iran would go badly for Iran, but far, far worse for the US and the middle east.

Perhaps some are not interested in spreading freedom and democracy but instead in making a stand and point for now and the next generations to come.

One they will not forget, and one that shows the entire world once and for all: Here and not further!

[Thermodolia]

Where are George Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, and Hank Paulson when you need them?

Dick Cheney and Co are hopefully in prison

[Zhivotnoye]

I understand Iran isn't the best country out there but I think war would be a bit extreme.

From what I've heard, American intel pointed to the possibility that Iran would engage US forces in the Middle-East. I am a bit skeptical of this intel, why you might ask? Well... who in their right mind would want to start a war against the US other than China or Russia? Iran on it' s own would be suicide.

Yes, I do think we should deploy more troops to cover our guys there, but we should not attack unless attacked. The last thing we need is another endless war in the Middle-East. In fact, I personally think we pull out all troops from there except in Israel and just let them have their irl battle royale. Middle-East was never our business anyhow, if they wanna live in a perpetual hell hole let them.

Not 100% sure, but it seems that this intel was based around Qassem Suleimani, who met with the Iraqi Shia leadership in Baghdad a few weeks ago. During the meeting he supposedly told them to be ready for a (U.S. - Iran) war.

In any case, we know at least that the intel wasn't worth much as the European states almost completely ignored it. Germany and the Netherlands halted their training program for a moment, but as we speak they have been resumed.
So whatever the intel is, the U.S. is clearly overreacting on it.

Iran would be a very different war than Iraq. Iran has a better equipped and trained army, geography that gives them a real advantage and powerful allies who would be far more willing to stick their necks out for them in defense of their own interests in the area.

We can quickly discount 'spreading freedom and democracy' as it's become increasingly hard for any US administration to say that with a straight face.

Any serious war with Iran would go badly for Iran, but far, far worse for the US and the middle east.

Perhaps some are not interested in spreading freedom and democracy but instead in making a stand and point for now and the next generations to come.

One they will not forget, and one that shows the entire world once and for all: Here and not further!

A stand and point like they did with Iraq? Or Afghanistan? Or Syria? Don't make me laugh.
There's really no point or stand to make concerning Iran.

[The Unified American Federation]

An Iran War is probably going to be the catalyst for World War 3 so please no. I'm still waiting for Bannerlord 2 to come out and I'll be rather annoyed if I'm bathed in nuclear fire before that happens.

But seriously, what benefit does the US gain other than patting itself on the back for being the world police? I'm certainly no expert but won't meaningless wars like this probably end up hurting the US's budget deficit even further than it already is? Sure, weapons manufacturers are going to have such a fantastic time but I doubt they have enough clout to move Congress or the public. Also, even if Iran is a theocracy and has nuclear weapons, don't you think the MAD doctrine applies to them as well? I mean, Kim and North Korea haven't launched any nuclear weapons despite threatening to do so on multiple occasions. I doubt the Irani authorities are more 'rogue' than the North Korean leadership in any case. Looking at it from Iran's perspective, nuclear weapons would be a helpful deterrent against any future US invasions...

I don't think there's any real reason for the US to send its forces all the way to Iran and I highly doubt they will. To me at least, this just sounds like a classic diversionary tactic.

Also, take a look at my former post; Nuclear Weapons would tenfold their power level and make them almost impossible to remove by force.

Given their hostile attitudes and intentions that would become a real problem and danger to anyone way beyond the middle east. Nuclear weapons in the hand of a structurally and ideologically driven totalitarian Islamic Republic would be very bad news given their abhorrent ideology.

A Theocratic state getting a hold of Nuclear Weapons would either have the smarts to not use them, or be so blinded by their own faith to believe that in doing so, they are carrying out "their right" to defeat their enemies.

MAD would be seen as a bluff, and in all honesty it's the only way to deter a Nuclear state from using it's weapons. However, that deterrence doesn't work when the leadership of one state is so blinded by faith that they would risk complete annihilation of their own people as long as it means they drag their enemies down with them.

Although getting the bomb might Deter the US, who's to say another country won't launch a preemptive First Strike against Iran like Israel? I'm not saying it would happen, but when Israel see's a state thats advocated for it's destruction get one of the most powerful weapons it could develop, they might dust off those Jericho missiles and put their money where their mouth is and Respond how they see fit and if that happens, who knows what the hell will happen.

[Nakena]

A Theocratic state getting a hold of Nuclear Weapons would either have the smarts to not use them, or be so blinded by their own faith to believe that in doing so, they are carrying out "their right" to defeat their enemies.

MAD would be seen as a bluff, and in all honesty it's the only way to deter a Nuclear state from using it's weapons. However, that deterrence doesn't work when the leadership of one state is so blinded by faith that they would risk complete annihilation of their own people as long as it means they drag their enemies down with them.

I do not expect them to actually ever use it. But it would give them a much bigger political cloud and an dangerous amount of power, and would also lead to more other nations attempting to get nukes. KSA reportly was interesting in buying nuclear weapons from Pakistan.

Although getting the bomb might Deter the US, who's to say another country won't launch a preemptive First Strike against Iran like Israel? I'm not saying it would happen, but when Israel see's a state thats advocated for it's destruction get one of the most powerful weapons it could develop, they might dust off those Jericho missiles and put their money where their mouth is and Respond how they see fit and if that happens, who knows what the hell will happen.

I doubt that with Jericho missiles alone the Israeli could stop the iranian program. More likely is that they start from KSA and conduct a targeted bombing campaign. (I am fairly sure KSA would provide them with Airfields and more necessary as they're secret allies by now)

[Novus America]

I understand Iran isn't the best country out there but I think war would be a bit extreme.

From what I've heard, American intel pointed to the possibility that Iran would engage US forces in the Middle-East. I am a bit skeptical of this intel, why you might ask? Well... who in their right mind would want to start a war against the US other than China or Russia? Iran on it' s own would be suicide.

Yes, I do think we should deploy more troops to cover our guys there, but we should not attack unless attacked. The last thing we need is another endless war in the Middle-East. In fact, I personally think we pull out all troops from there except in Israel and just let them have their irl battle royale. Middle-East was never our business anyhow, if they wanna live in a perpetual hell hole let them.

Not 100% sure, but it seems that this intel was based around Qassem Suleimani, who met with the Iraqi Shia leadership in Baghdad a few weeks ago. During the meeting he supposedly told them to be ready for a (U.S. - Iran) war.

In any case, we know at least that the intel wasn't worth much as the European states almost completely ignored it. Germany and the Netherlands halted their training program for a moment, but as we speak they have been resumed.
So whatever the intel is, the U.S. is clearly overreacting on it.

Perhaps some are not interested in spreading freedom and democracy but instead in making a stand and point for now and the next generations to come.

One they will not forget, and one that shows the entire world once and for all: Here and not further!

A stand and point like they did with Iraq? Or Afghanistan? Or Syria? Don't make me laugh.
There's really no point or stand to make concerning Iran.

There absolutely is. If they attack us or our allies we respond. That is the stand.
What is so controversial about that?

[Hamstan]

It's not our job to do this. I thought that this war that started in 1914 ended in 1991. Apparently, our leaders have other ideas. How many more Vietnams or Iraqs or Afghanistans will it take for us to say "no more"? Why can't we cut military spending a little and focus on our roads, our ports, our rail lines? How many more dead will it take for us to leave them alone? Don't we realize that this is exactly what the terrorists want?

[Nakena]

It's not our job to do this. I thought that this war that started in 1914 ended in 1991. Apparently, our leaders have other ideas. How many more Vietnams or Iraqs or Afghanistans will it take for us to say "no more"? Why can't we cut military spending a little and focus on our roads, our ports, our rail lines? How many more dead will it take for us to leave them alone? Don't we realize that this is exactly what the terrorists want?

All it really takes is to make a ultimative decision instead of halfassing around which what has been done the past decades really ever since 2001. Lets intervene and uhm, bring some democracy and have war. But not really go all out... and not go to the root of the problem. The World Wars were over in much shorter time, and like back then this is also a War on the question on how this world and man living on it ought to be.

It's nothing less than a fight for the future of this world. The enemy knows this, it is why it challanged the US into an fight.

But this is not the fight they dared to fight, because they are liberals at heart who nowadays no longer understand the fundamental dimension of this War, and that fighting it with restrain is what it led to be forever. Thus their war failed, horribly, with hundred thousends (if not million) of people having suffered or died for nothing in the end. Because they were too coward or just inable to understand the truth.

So the logical alternative would be not to fight the war at all, because theres no concept on how to archive victory. The next conclusion would be withdrawing all together from the Middle East and the Islamic World and shut the doors and leave them on their own affairs, and abandon it for good. As far as possible in the globalized world.

[Orange-Transvaal]

I would say no to this being a war. We don't need another power vacuum in the Middle East with ISIS having almost no more territory.

[Pope Joan]

Our buddy Israel despises Iran because it supports Hezbollah in Lebanon and Israel longs to control that country.

So what

Aside from pressure we feel from the worst international ally ever, what vital interests are threatened by Iran?

None.

Just let them be

[Maydona]

No Iranian have ever bothered me or my family why should we destroy their country because they assert themselves on the world stage and wont be bullies by the US?

How many more millions of lives does the US need to take before they're satisfied?

[Sidesh0w B0b]

Yep. Half of them are probably lounging around Dubai in extreme luxury. The others are at least rolling around in the money, save one. Ashcroft is dead. Ashes are still burning brightly from their escapades. Damn them all.

If only.

My bets would be with some resting and retirement places in and around Virginia and Maryland surbubs and giving guest lectures at some obscure Colleges or being on final storage siding in supervisory boards of equally obscure think thonks companies.

They're way too timid and mediocre to life the high luxury life with hookers and blackjack.

Your idea of luxury isn't quite it. BTW, they have Skype. They can do all that lecturing from the comforts of posh.