Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What will Iran do?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What will Iran do?

    Now that the Iraqis are about to gain their independence, we are starting to hear rumblings from Iran. It seems that the leadership in Iran is expressing an unwillingness to have a US ally on it's southern border. So what does this mean for Iraq and the US?

  • #2
    More terrorist acts...

    I heard many Iraqi civil contractor who work for Westerners go holiday around 30th of June as there is news on attacks on them...
    a brain cell

    Comment


    • #3
      Iran's position is not enviable and they are very much like Soviet communists in the late 1980s; they know the end is near. The fall of the clerics was inevitable because of the general political forces around the world but Iraq may hasten it quite a bit.

      "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
      --Frederick II, King of Prussia

      Comment


      • #4
        So might this mean an Iranian invasion to install an Iranian puppet government?

        Comment


        • #5
          No way, the public and the military has been shaken by the Iraqi experience and there will be no support for anything beyond economic sanctions. They will go after each other's throats in Iran, you just wait and watch. Some writer or politician once said that "revolution devours her own children" but I can never recall who said that. I think it's a very true statement.

          "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
          --Frederick II, King of Prussia

          Comment


          • #6
            Iran is the only country in the Middle East in which America is massively popular. Semi-scientific polling shows that 80% think highly of USA.

            With these conditions, the best we could do is just sit by and wait. However, it is believed that the Iranian mullahs will get the bomb in less than 2 years. The question is, when they get it, will they do with it what they have always said they would do..........destroy Israel?

            It is truly a race against time. Can the unpopular mullahs go nuclear before being overthrown by their very own people. So far, the mullahs have been very effective in using murder, torture and intimadation to control the uprising.

            Comment


            • #7
              Yes, don't go and screw things up in Iran too. Just wait and see what the people do by themselves, and if they ask for help, then help them.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Prester John
                Yes, don't go and screw things up in Iran too. Just wait and see what the people do by themselves, and if they ask for help, then help them.

                I am truly conflicted on this. If, in two years, Tel Aviv is a sheet of glass, were we morally wrong to have stood by and waited?

                The most difficult part of the policy of preemption is that you must justify your actions based on what DIDN'T happen.

                On the other side, it revolution does occur, what and who gets the bombs, and the people and facilities that make the bombs, or even the knowledge associated with it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The biggest problem here is if Israel considers Iran a threat - they will
                  strike first - damn the consequences. I'm getting really concerned about the fact that the US military is hiding where the foreign fighters in Iraq are coming from - the reports I've seen that large amounts of aid is coming from Iran - maybe the destruction of a few oil depot/transfer stations is required to get some attention from the mullahs
                  Black & blue from the TOAW learning curve!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think Iraq could have been the first the revolt against the tyrant making the American intervention unnecessary. However, the fact that the country is so bitterly divided along the sectarian and ethnic lines made Saddam's life a lot easier. People couldn't unite against the dictator; hopefuly they will not succeed in uniting against the American occupation force either. I'm hearing voices that Iraq will end up being split into 3 separate countries with Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds each getting a chunk of land.
                    Last edited by MonsterZero; 15 Jun 04, 21:38.

                    "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
                    --Frederick II, King of Prussia

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by MonsterZero
                      I'm hearing voices that Iraq will end up being split into 3 separate countries with Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds each getting a chunk of land.
                      Isn't that the way it should be? The British Empire randomly drew up some lines on a map, ignoring cultural and ethnic differences, which is partly to blame for the mess we're in.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        MZ: the Kurds will never get a country while Turkey still exists. And with Turkey getting more and more chummy with the EU, and being the model of a successful sectarian Islamic state, it seems unlikely any of the big nations would oppose them over what is in reality a domestic issue.
                        Now listening too;
                        - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by MonsterZero
                          I think Iraq could have been the first the revolt against the tyrant making the American intervention unnecessary. However, the fact that the country is so bitterly divided along the sectarian and ethnic lines made Saddam's life a lot easier. People couldn't unite against the dictator; hopefuly they will not succeed in uniting against the American occupation force either. I'm hearing voices that Iraq will end up being split into 3 separate countries with Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds each getting a chunk of land.

                          In the 90's, we did try to overthrow Saddam with the Kurds. Chalabai played a big part. The revolt was a disaster. And this is in addition to the revolt right after the Gulf War I and the 8 year war in which Ayatollah Khomeini tried to overthrow Saddam. I think Saddam would have been around awhile.

                          Sometimes dictators go easy in the night (Marcos of the Phillipines and The Shah of Iran) and sometimes they are like a bad cold that never leaves (Qaadafi of Libya).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Foggy
                            The biggest problem here is if Israel considers Iran a threat - they will
                            strike first - damn the consequences. I'm getting really concerned about the fact that the US military is hiding where the foreign fighters in Iraq are coming from - the reports I've seen that large amounts of aid is coming from Iran - maybe the destruction of a few oil depot/transfer stations is required to get some attention from the mullahs
                            I never thought of this. You may be right. Israel did destroy the Osirak plant when Iran was close to nuclear weapons the first time. Maybe it isn't a problem. Maybe Israel will provide the solution.

                            The porous borders of Iraq are a problem both on the Syrian and Iranian side, as well as, up North with the former Soviet Union.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Custer6
                              Iran is the only country in the Middle East in which America is massively popular. Semi-scientific polling shows that 80% think highly of USA.

                              With these conditions, the best we could do is just sit by and wait.
                              I believe the US should try to ease tensions by toning down rhetoric and lifting some trade relations. The current political situation will only improve, even if that progress is slow and bumpy. The Iranian people are committed to change and have shown that in recent months. So we would be wiser to limit our involvement to quietly rewarding reform.

                              Originally posted by Custer6
                              However, it is believed that the Iranian mullahs will get the bomb in less than 2 years. The question is, when they get it, will they do with it what they have always said they would do..........destroy Israel?
                              I doubt Iran would use nuclear weapons to launch a pre-emptive attack against Israel.

                              First, there are serious targeting issues. If the Iranians hit Tel Aviv, it would be widely seen as an act of aggression. If they attack an Jewish settlement in the occupied terrority, chances are there will be more loss of life on the side of Palestinians than Israelis. (That is if Iran possesses the ability to deliver the weapons.)

                              Second, most Arab governments, particularly Iran's neighbors would view the attack on Israel as another attempt to intimidate them into supporting an expansion of Iranian Middle Eastern power. It would not be hard to imagine Iran attacking Jidah, or Kuwait City "to free oppressed Arabs." Given what a relationship with the West offers, and the lack of strong support for Islamic radicalism, most Arab governments would likely strengthen their ties to the US.

                              Third, Israel, and her most powerful alley, the United States both have nuclear weapons. Although, I doubt there will be much support for such a response.

                              Fourth, the international consequences for an pre-emptive attack would favor Bush's more aggressive strategy. The EU has invested alot in diplomatic efforts meant to resolve the nuclear standoff with the clear understanding that failure could very well commit them to war. Bush basically told France, Germany, and Great Britian last year that either you deal with it or we will. If they fail, all three of these nations would have very weak political positions. Thus, the US would pursue whatever strategy she chooses short of nuclear war, likely with alot of international support.

                              Even if the European powers choose not to role with the US strategy, they will be far weaker than they were in 2003 when the OIF began.

                              Finally, and most importantly, I believe Iranians would not support such an attack. They might hate Israel, but people understand the repercussions. It's people likely would be very angry with their government, and might even revolt against it.

                              Originally posted by Custer6
                              It is truly a race against time. Can the unpopular mullahs go nuclear before being overthrown by their very own people. So far, the mullahs have been very effective in using murder, torture and intimadation to control the uprising.
                              Not really. They didn't deter many Iranians from voting earlier this year. They can't seem to put a halt on more independent newspapers. Last year, they freed one editor, and he went right back to writing articles call for democracy. Kids are dressing less conservatively with decreasing fear of attack. A number of their colleges on a Saturday night resemble many of our own. Many Iranians have expressed a desire to come to America, denounces the revolution, and even make jokes on television about their religious leaders. So hardliners in Iran are finding it just as difficult to control a large population of educated, unemployed young people as the Shah. In a nation where more than 70% of the population was born at the beginning or after the revolution, which is not a good thing in this case, reform is inevitable.

                              Originally posted by Foggy
                              The biggest problem here is if Israel considers Iran a threat - they will
                              strike first - damn the consequences.
                              I don't think there is much support inside of or outside Iran for this kind of attack. The strike would need to be larger than in 1980, and would be many times more complicated.

                              Originally posted by Foggy
                              I'm getting really concerned about the fact that the US military is hiding where the foreign fighters in Iraq are coming from - the reports I've seen that large amounts of aid is coming from Iran - maybe the destruction of a few oil depot/transfer stations is required to get some attention from the mullahs
                              I think Iran would prefer to stay out of Iraq and hopes stability is established. Undermining the current effort is not in her interest. It would probably be better for Iran to wait until after stability is established and try a long term approach to create a less western nation.

                              I'm certain there are those who support insurgents in Iraq from Iran. However, I don't believe it is a policy of Iran's government.
                              "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X