Iranian War Monitor

As a thread to track the devleopments in the growing tension bewteen Iran and the US, it is very light on reliable and realistic commentary. Conjecture and posturing only become nearly acceptable behaviour when they are based on reliable facts.

Here is a good primer for Iran:
news.bbc.co.uk...

At least understand your enemy before you try to second guess him.

As for the latest development, it appears even Iranian's are getting nervous about sanctions at the very least:
news.bbc.co.uk...

Also remember that the president of Iran does not have control of the country's military forces. This power, as does all power in Iran, resides with the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Although the increasingly conservative hardliners in Iran are a growing force, it is still a country that is moving itself towards its own idea of democracy.

The development of nuclear capability, for weapons or domestic power, is only a good thing; and would stabalise a region that at the present is dominated by the only nuclear powers, namley the US and Israel.

In all past situations where both sides have had Nuclear weapons neither side has employed them: the cold war, USSR vs USA; Asia, Pakistan vs India; Far East, China vs Tawain (US backed).
The presences of Nuclear weapons on both sides seems to prevent the use of such weapons (based on history and despite the endless apocolyptical warnings given by the neo-conservatives).

A conflict between Iran and the US is highley unlikley, as the US does not have the current capacity in its military to engage in such a venture. With US forces locked in Iraq for the next few years at least, any build up to such a war would be long coming.

Things are coming to a head. It's only a matter of time. Can anyone tell me what is going to be different now if take the nuke machine out in Iran vs. the time Israel did it before? I think it will be economic sanctions along with air strikes. I pray that the more reasonable folks in Iran overthrow the crazy IslamaNazis. Sitting back and being an isolationist will only strengthen their cause. They are not going to stop even if we hand Israel over to them and buy there oil. The only thing that will make them stop is our heads in a heap or convert us to their version Islam. It's facism.

Originally posted by duncanidaho
... I pray that the more reasonable folks in Iran overthrow the crazy IslamaNazis...

They did in the parliamentary elections in 2000. The liberals won a lot of ground form the conservatives.

Originally posted by duncanidaho
It's facism.

No it is not, its Fascism - which, stricly speaking, is of a more right wing political ideology, based primarly on being the opposition to Communism.

Originally posted by Expositor

The development of nuclear capability, for weapons or domestic power, is only a good thing; and would stabalise a region that at the present is dominated by the only nuclear powers, namley the US and Israel.

Sorry, i dont see how this is a good thing.

I see where your coming from, but this is Iran........

Originally posted by ExpositorA conflict between Iran and the US is highley unlikley, as the US does not have the current capacity in its military to engage in such a venture. With US forces locked in Iraq for the next few years at least, any build up to such a war would be long coming.

I think you've missed something. They've been building up to this for some time already. The US occupies two countries either side of Iran. They already have many forces there, bases, logistics, supplies, command & control infrastructure, etc - they're almost good to go already. Not to mention the fact they've been spying over Iran for quite some time - the plans are probably already drawn up and ready to go. They would just need to bolster the number of troops - and I don't think they're as stretched as you think.

A full scale invasion isn't on the cards anyway tho. What the US does have is crippling air power and cruise missiles. They could lay waste to Iran without even setting foot in the country. Once the Iranian armed forces are neutralized they'll probably just send special forces in to take out the nuclear sites.

The intention isn't to invade and occupy Iran - it's to knock it back a few decades so we don't have to worry about them for a long time. That can be done relatively easily.

Yes, you are hitting the nail on the head. We are exactly where we want to be. This is why Iran is getting frantic. We are winning and the Islamofascist know it. Everyone will see that we are doing the right thing in due time. Syria is also on our radar and always has been.

Originally posted by Curio
I think you've missed something. They've been building up to this for some time already. The US occupies two countries either side of Iran. They already have many forces there, bases, logistics, supplies, command & control infrastructure, etc - they're almost good to go already.

Fortunatley, we do not yet live in a world where American can just invade any country it likes at will. Although there is aurgument over the effectiveness of the United Nations, the US - and any coalition countries would need a resolution before any further military action could be embarked upon. This would begin with sanctions, and move towards no fly zones etc.

Gaining support in the UN might be difficult this time around, as even moderates like UN weapons inspector Hans Blick is on record as saying that Iran should be allowed to develop it nuclear power generation capacity.

Originally posted by Curio
...and I don't think they're as stretched as you think.

The last official statement by the Pentagon, in August 2005, stated that the US was in no position to begin major military action. Since then they have had to commit more troops to Iraq just to keep the country from sliding into full blown civil war. At present they only hold control due to series of agreements with local militia commanders.
Any type of action against Iran would trigger the Iranian army to cross into Iraq. The Iranians have a well trained and equiped military force, with over 15 million men available for military services.

The U.S. has already supplied Israel with armament, jets and more. It will be Israel who will strike first (backed and urged on by the U.S.). Just watch. The Illuminati want WWIII and this will be the portal.

Originally posted by Denied

Originally posted by Expositor

The development of nuclear capability, for weapons or domestic power, is only a good thing; and would stabalise a region that at the present is dominated by the only nuclear powers, namley the US and Israel.

Sorry, i dont see how this is a good thing.

I see where your coming from, but this is Iran........

Look at the history of these kinds of situations, such as the Cold War. Now the Conservative right of the time would have you believe the USSR was interested in nothing but total annihilation of the west. The Red Menace, we were told, were just waiting to nuke us all back into the stonage and then land on our soil and eat the survivors. The very fact of their existance placed us all in such peril that we proped up regiems like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Needs must when the devil drives, and drive us they did.

In reality the USSR was an rotting, ailing, invalid of a state that was barely able to feed and clothe its soldiers let alone invade Europe.

The point here is that both sides had Nuclear Weapons during this time, and neither side used them. Mutal destruction is an overwhelming reality check that pulled the US and USSR back from the brink more than once.

All of this is purely academic though, as the Iranians want to develop Nuclear technology to produce power. There is currently no proof that any weapons programmes are being pursued.

2006 is not the year. The march to the decimation of Iran requires superior timing and set up. The U.S. regime has to convince us war with Iran is necessary.

Look for 2006 to plant the seeds for the war, but not the war itself.

Sorry Sweat... but I think 2006 will certainly be the year.

On another note... Did you mean for your handle to read "SweetMonicaIdo" using the word sweet as in like sugar. You've used the "Sweat" as in perspiration, like arm-pit juice. I'm sure it's a minor oversight - just thought I'd let you know

I will have to agree with sweet on this one. No attack will be made on iran officialy this year.
The bush administrations reputation has not been so good, with no wmd's and the recent phone tapping incident. I believe that the american people dont trust the president fully at this time. He has another 3 years to win the american people over again to send them into war again.
I think what we will see this year is all of the political gibberish befor the war.
So how will the administration sell this one? Keep on pushing with a nuclear Iran, or convince the masses that a democratic iran will mean a safer america?

Originally posted by kozmo
Sorry Sweat... but I think 2006 will certainly be the year.

On another note... Did you mean for your handle to read "SweetMonicaIdo" using the word sweet as in like sugar. You've used the "Sweat" as in perspiration, like arm-pit juice. I'm sure it's a minor oversight - just thought I'd let you know

2006 will be THE YEAR, just not the war. Going to war with Iran, like I said, requires massive set-up, even if the military campaign can be kicked off right off the bat.

My feeling is around late October, awful, defining moments will take place that will set things in motion for disaster. By 2019, the world will be Blade Runner-esque, which isn't all too bad, change is good after all.

Originally posted by wang
I will have to agree with sweet on this one. No attack will be made on iran officialy this year.
The bush administrations reputation has not been so good, with no wmd's and the recent phone tapping incident. I believe that the american people dont trust the president fully at this time. He has another 3 years to win the american people over again to send them into war again.
I think what we will see this year is all of the political gibberish befor the war.
So how will the administration sell this one? Keep on pushing with a nuclear Iran, or convince the masses that a democratic iran will mean a safer america?

It'll be interesting to see how the Bush administration sets the whole thing up. For one, there HAS to be some sort of stability in Iraq before war is waged on Iran. There must also be a real percieved crisis, such as an oil crisis that would legitimize action. And I truly believe the U.S. and Israel will work closely together here and it'd be interesting to see what kind of coalition will be built.

Bush has to sell the war? Iran is doing that for us, if they continue with their insane actions they will further alienate the world. Just to be clear, I don't think we should or will invade Iran, a massive air campaign should suffice.

Yes, Iran is too far gone for boots on the ground. The way things are going with Hamas, I think the boots will be Israeli in the West Bank and Gaza. When the real fecal matter hits the fan these guys will buckle and ask for cease fire like they always do. The Holy Sites in Israel will make both sides go to the ground.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Bush has to sell the war?

Iran is doing that for us, if they continue with their insane actions they will further alienate the world. Just to be clear, I don't think we should or will invade Iran, a massive air campaign should suffice.

It's not a ha ha issue.

I rarely say this, but WestPoint23 is incorrect. The only thing Iran is doing is what Iraq never did: talk back. Bush will have to sell this war and he'll have to pull off something better than the crap he pulled before the invasion of Iraq.

Originally posted by duncanidaho
Iran invaded us. Remember our Embassy! That was US soil folks. Just stop and think how much crap could have been stopped if we acted then.

Iran did not 'invade' the US embassy in Tehran, Iranians did.

It was not the Iranian military who did it.

Besides, the storming of the embassy and taking of hostages was to ensure that the US did not do what it did in the 1950's and get the CIA together with the British intelligence service to overthrow the people's choice for governance and replace him with the Shah.

The hostages in 1979 were to make sure an CIA-backed overthrow of who they wanted to rule their country did not happen again.

Invade Iran in 1979? The whole of Iran would have been up in arms, perhaps quite literally. They were not to be denied their revolution or see another return of the US-backed Shah.

Originally posted by duncanidaho
The Oil barrons want high oil prices. If the powers that be wanted the oil it would be ours folks. They want a balance of power and people buying and consuming.

The Iraqi oil would be secured, if it was not for those pesky insurgents, especially those Iraqis who seem to take offence at their country being invaded and in their view, occupied.

Iran next! They might be more accomodating.

How did this become a US vs Iran issue? The entire EU was against Iranian nuclear power, Russia was working to get them to stop pursuing it, Anyone remember those actions? So how is it suddenly strictly a US agenda thing?

The scariest thing about Iran to me was when the Iranian President was at the UN and gave his speech, and then said it was God's Mandate that all the leaders listen to him raptly, and things to that effect. Anytime religion becomes involved it can get ugly fast.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
How did this become a US vs Iran issue? The entire EU was against Iranian nuclear power, Russia was working to get them to stop pursuing it, Anyone remember those actions? So how is it suddenly strictly a US agenda thing?

Because everybody knows the US and Iran have history, and the EU and Russia will not probably be the forerunners or strong advocates in a war with Iran.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The scariest thing about Iran to me was when the Iranian President was at the UN and gave his speech, and then said it was God's Mandate that all the leaders listen to him raptly, and things to that effect. Anytime religion becomes involved it can get ugly fast.

Did not Bush say that he invaded Iraq because God told him to?

How many times has he said 'God bless America'?

You're right about religious inolvement, but it is not just Ahmadinejad.

[edit on 27-1-2006 by Regensturm]