Is Iran Strong Enough to Go to War with the U.S.?

Am I the only one who saw the recent pentagon plans to use low yield nukes to gain battlefield advantage?According to a article on Drudge it was published and quickly pulled off official sites. Obliterated is a interesting choice of words to describe what’s going to happen if war breaks out in the context of that plan.

I think it was a trial balloon, aimed at Iran.

we said something similar before the invasion of Iraq.

Basically telegraphing to the 2nd tier of Iranian leadership, that it is possible that they could personally survive a war with the USA, and one day rule the Islamic republic in place of the Khameneian regime....

We used to send messages in code during world war II, that we knew the abwehr could decipher. It was all about how if the top tier was taken out. That we would respect admiral Doenitz as CIC. And sure enough, when hitler bit the pistol, we cut a surrender with Donitz, who "had been appointed by Hitler" to pick up the pieces.

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: CanadianMason

i'm not clear as to why the u.s. wants to go into iran in the first place.

Because the only nations left that aren't part of a centralized banking system are: Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Iran.

a reply to: subfab

i have been through the strait of hormuz in the 70s it's a very narrow stretch of water if iran block that with a few blown up ships the world economy will be in deep #

a reply to: Fallingdown

Iraq had the fourth largest standing army in the world before Desert Storm.

Mainly because they were funded and supported by the USA through the Iran Iraq proxy war.

I don’t think things went exactly the way Saddam wanted

In most part because Saddam believed the words of Rumsfeld and the US administration , a lesson Iran has no doubt taken note of.

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: CanadianMason

i'm not clear as to why the u.s. wants to go into iran in the first place.

Because the only nations left that aren't part of a centralized banking system are: Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Iran.

And if this was a thing, we could've easily done Cuba decades ago. I realize these theories sound cool at first but when you apply a little critical thinking they fall apart quickly.

originally posted by: Graysen

The American military / intel has effectively occupied EVERY ONE of Iran's neighbors except China, which only has a 12-mile border with Iran.

What the devil

Other than the oil fields, there's no sense in taking and trying to hold Iran.

The US would target and destroy the Iranian Military Industrial Complex.

The US would remove Iran's ability to wage war on a large scale. Insurgent and Guerrilla actions would be it.

Removing a radical Islamic government would be the goal. Collateral damage will happen. It does in all wars.

HOWEVER, radical Islamic fighters are very resilient and with the removal of Iran's current regime, it would create a power vacuum in the region for another militant Islamic group to rise backed by their hatred of the west.....a continuing circle of life, not to mention their will be Jihad strikes in other countries while the US and probably the Brits go to war with Iran. Don't forget, the Brits are some bad asses as well when it come to fighting.

If China or Russia entered the fight, it only gets longer and more interesting at that point. Iran can certainly become a proxy war.

So entire thread and no one mentions what Hezbollah would do to Israel if the US launches a large attack on Iran?

What did the US win in Afghanistan?
What has the US won in Iraq?
We killed more of them than did did of us. We killed far more of their women and children since they didn't have the capability to bomb our homeland like we bomb theirs.

But what did we win? Control of poppie and oil fields?

US will only go to war with countries that do not have the capability to cause damage inside the US. Meaning, not the real countries that can actually pose a threat to US citizens at home. This is the agreement with the MIC. They can have their wars but only with people that cannot strike the US.

What I am curious about is does this extend to Israel? I am starting to think it does not anymore. I also really don't want a bunch of Israeli refugees here in the US. I can just see how that will play out, a bunch of whiny leeches we will have to cater to infecting our local culture with their extremism and prejudice. Have you ever had conversations with Israelis? I have. They are very arrogant and look down on us for the most part.

So, maybe that is the plan. The greater Israel project is no longer considered viable so they are forcing the issue by picking war with Iran which they know will lead to destruction of Israel to trigger another mass migration. This time the prize is the US, with all it's vast landmass, resources and opportunities beyond what the land of Israel could ever offer.

Something to ponder, stranger plans and ideas have happened.

a reply to: Strate8

What I got from all that is you have no idea what the Afghanistan war was about. I explained this in 2 or 3 different threads just this week. It's shocking to me how many people here don't know why we invaded Afghanistan.

a reply to: CanadianMason

that's not a contradiction. It's plain truth.

They can confront. Tweek the lions beard, if you will. But the lion is still bigger, stronger, etc...

They can't win, but they can still give the impression that it will cost to attack 'em.

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: LABTECH767

What we saw in the first gulf war, like the precision guided munitions seemed like our cutting edge tech to most, but I assur you we were at least 2 levels beyond that, at the time.

Likewise, whatever we were to unleash today, whether it be cyber, satellite, or whatever will be a couple levels below cutting edge, as well.

They cant deal with the stuff thats common knowledge, like the F-35, let alone the things that would come as a surprise.

There's no way we reveal our top tech to hit a speedbump like Iran.

The reality is we have to exorcise restraint, because most ppl are not in favor of indiscriminate killing of civilians, women, children etc.

Agreed, there are rumours that we in Britain have far more drone's than anyone other than the US is aware of and let's be fair these are old technology now but were drone's are concerned they can be updated to a certain degree, you can't upgrade the pilot of a fighter jet but you can certainly upgrade the electronic brains' of a combat and indeed all other drone variant's.

I think someone knew that at some point they would have to redress the growing imbalance in global power or else surrender the world to a series of new catastrophic wars, they have held off on revealing what they have - and these are not even the cutting edge stuff - for political reason's but they have it, if we have it then you can be certain that the tech is either at least as good or even far better stateside as it is almost all shared tech and development's.

Personally I still believe the US DUMB's - remember those - are real but they are part of an outgrowth of the SDI program and actually house huge magnetic launch facility's that you have to hide underground because it is both more convenient and also hides them, from these facility's - think of them as HUGE rail gun's solid state (not manned) satellites can be launched with no rocket plume, no or very little thermal signature as well as orbital ordnance which can then shower down on any place on the planet, imagine a fleet of stealth weapon's in orbit like a shroud of satellites over the planet, tungsten and steel kinetic dart's that can hit with the force of a small nuke taking out bunkers with precision from space too fast and small to be shot down and using pure kinetic force to impart a meteor like crater causing explosion on there target with little or no fall out as any such material would have to come from the site of the impact and not from the dart itself.

I have no doubt that the US could take out all the major facility's of Russia (including Yemantu), China, Iran and a host of other potentially unfriendly nation's SIMULTANEOUSLY if they ever REALLY had too and that they could do this so fast that those nation's could not respond - except - perhaps - for nuclear sub's but given the advancement in tech over the last 30 years I suspect that there is little or nothing even the best the Russian's or even we (the Astute class is a white elephant) have that could elude the upgraded Sosus replacement system's that are now secretly in operation in both the Atlantic and Pacific and indeed have the advantage of not being localized tech so even those Ballistic submarines are no longer the trump cards they once were.

That is just there major facility's, launch sites, storage depot's, production facility's, energy grid's, fuel, water and infrastructure and shortly there after those nation's would fall into chaos and collapse.

You ever wonder why ULTRA TOP SECRET file's were stored on poorly password protected or even unprotected servers, yes some may have been down to idiot's in charge but I would suggest that a lot of it was a goose chase, old tech that look's cutting edge and false leads' to lead the hackers of China, Russia, NK and other's down the wrong road's when the real treasures would have been stored anywhere but were those file's were.

Then again human's can be dumb so I can only hope I am correct in that assumption.

And I hope that common sense and diplomacy always win out because at the end of the day in any conflict it is always the innocent that end up suffering.

And after that a bit of Roger Waters to cool the toes in, an oddly prophetic song from 1987 that was part of his Radio Kaos story album (all the song's in the album form a contiguous story).

originally posted by: Strate8
Have you ever had conversations with Israelis? I have. They are very arrogant and look down on us for the most part.

What a total load of prejudiced rubbish. The average Israeli is incredibly nice, usually very educated, incredibly peaceful (nobody will ever attack you just for the sake of violence drunken yobbism like in many western states), kind, hospitable to foreign people and cultures.

On your Afghan war talk again total nonsense. The war has been a success in taking out the home and trainng camps of Al Quiyyida plus kept the west safe from them containing the violence to the Pathan regions and away from the rest of us.

No offensive but most people on here are delusional and watch too many movies and tv news.

US military has not proven its capabilities against a strong foreign power since 1945.

The failed to subdue the peasant Chinese and North Koreans in the 50s. The essentially lost the Vietnam war and pulled out in a hurry and Vietcong took Saigon and United Vietnam.

America won small engagements like Grenada and large engagement in Iraq in 90s. By 2003 Iraq army was depleted, it was lacking morale.

Some of you guy think the Iraqi army fought all the way, nope the deserted. Its easy to win a war if the other side just deserts and does even attempt to fight urban war. Bagadad was a free ride for the American army.

US military has proven # only they spend vast amounts of money building tanks, ships and planes using taxpayer money.

Its laughable that some of you think Iran military will be taken out in hours or days. I don't want war, but i think the Americans public needs a reality check.

a reply to: Jesushere

That is mostly true and they lost in Vietnam - though actually they had won but a change in president meant that for political reason's he withdrew on the very eve of peace and left the vengeful commies to take out the corrupt military government that had acted as a puppet state for the US in that little proxy war against Russia - but hey the Chinese also tried to invade and were sent packing by the Vietnamese with a hell of a bloody nose so argumentatively the US had beaten the VC but the VC had not surrendered and was going to go down fighting, the Chinese later decided they were going to annex the country and got there arses handed to them by the VC.

Later the Soviets had there own Vietnam in Afghanistan were the US and Brit's trained and armed the 'then' friendly faction's of guerrilla fighters whom were fighting the soviets just as the Soviets had done with the VC so arguably there was a superpower winner in both of those conflicts', were we failed in the west is that we failed to win the peace and the current problem's in the world such as the rise of terrorism while not a new phenomena can be traced back to this failing on our part.

But as you say they have NOT faced a true and well equipped enemy since the end of the cold war and never went into open warfare with there opposite number during those years other than a few spat's which were probably kept low key due to the potential for them to spark WW3 had they not been parleyed over.

But I still remember an event from my own teenage years back in the early 80's when the world nearly came to an end - or did it in some parallel reality?, in our own reality a Russian navy officer disobeyed his order to launch a retaliatory strike against the US when the soviets had received false indicators that the US had launched a massive nuclear strike against them and by doing so he averted WW3 and saved both sides of that nearly not so cold war.
en.wikipedia.org...
For which we can truly thank God for speaking into that man's heart at that moment in time.

a reply to: Jesushere

vietnamese generals said in interviews we had it won militarily,but polotical will was the reason they left. So you get half credit there.

a reply to: Jesushere

Yeah. OK. When the armistice ending the shooting in Korea was signed the Chinese/North Koreans were being pushed back. Ask the Chinese how many men they lost in the fighting...they won't be able to tell you, because they don't know. Lots is the correct answer. Three entire armies were destroyed. Quite possibly as many as several hundred thousand, possibly as many as one million, though that seems unlikely, were killed/wounded in the fighting.

Militarily? The US hasn't lost on the field of battle since the early days of WWII. Politically back home, that's an entirely different matter. Please do not make the mistake of thinking that that equates to lack of battle field skill on the part of the US military, or its allies for that matter. The US military is very, very good at its job--breaking things. That its civilian leadership is lacking is hardly their fault.

But whatever rocks your boat.

originally posted by: AnakinWayneII
You are wrong about India.

I stand corrected. With the loss of income from the second biggest importer of Iranian oil, the Iranian authorities clearly have a problem. Time to demonstrate their desire to support Iranians by stopping their obsession with obtaining nuclear weapons, which is what this is all about.

Interesting that in this twisted world, Iran’s only significant friends or aiders are:

1. Russia - who benefit economically by having Iranian oil taken out of the market and,
2. China - who persecute Muslims and are no friends of Islam. Tough message for the Islamic Republic as China is surely the Bigger Satan in all of this.

a reply to: Steveogold

Which is why that won't be allowed to happen.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: AnakinWayneII
You are wrong about India.

I stand corrected. With the loss of income from the second biggest importer of Iranian oil, the Iranian authorities clearly have a problem. Time to demonstrate their desire to support Iranians by stopping their obsession with obtaining nuclear weapons, which is what this is all about.

Interesting that in this twisted world, Iran’s only significant friends or aiders are:

1. Russia - who benefit economically by having Iranian oil taken out of the market and,
2. China - who persecute Muslims and are no friends of Islam. Tough message for the Islamic Republic as China is surely the Bigger Satan in all of this.

a top Russian Foreign Ministry official in Moscow, Zamir Kabulov told reporters of Washington's new sanctions on Khamenei. "Iran will never be alone if, God forbid, the U.S. ever takes absolutely crazy and irresponsible actions against it," he said. "Not only Russia, but many countries sympathize with Iran."

If they do help Iran out might the US starting a war against Iran, things might get very ugly fast.