Is a US-led war with Iran inevitable?

[pap]

Fair point.

 

It really isn't though. It would be fair, if that's what was said.

 

Suppose is just goes to show. True or not, soundbites really work.

[Verbal]

It really isn't though. It would be fair, if that's what was said.

 

Suppose is just goes to show. True or not, soundbites really work.

 

The reality is that Iran isn't going to start lobbing nuclear weapons at Israel, whatever anyone says. If you've been to the Middle East, especially around the Israeli, Jordanian and Saudi borders, you realise how TINY the place is. Even the smallest of nuclear warheads targeted at Israel would wipe out millions, Arabs and Jews alike.

 

And as for the rhetoric, yes, it's true that Ahmadinejad did not say '...off the map', but even if he had, it doesn't mean he's going to do it. Just as with the American politicians in the US primaries, you can say something for one audience which will go down badly with another. It's all part of a political calculation.

 

I do expect there to be trouble in the Straits. I do not expect a war. It's in no one's interest.

[aintforever]

in other words...as long as you don't want to pay even more than the ridiculous price at the petrol pump....or your monthly fuel bill....or the price of your bread etc etc.....the world revolves around oil......

 

I would rather pay more for petrol start wars thanks.

[buctootim]

I would rather pay more for petrol start wars thanks.

 

bingo

[Window Cleaner]

I would rather pay more for petrol start wars thanks.

 

In fact it could be the opposite, as sanctions really start to bite and Europe decreases even further it's purchase of Iranian oil

and puts pressure on Japan to cut Iranian imports as well it could well be that Iran starts to maverick on oil prices because of their dimished revenue streams.This would nark all of the others and provoke a lot of inter-arab tension.

[pap]

The reality is that Iran isn't going to start lobbing nuclear weapons at Israel, whatever anyone says. If you've been to the Middle East, especially around the Israeli, Jordanian and Saudi borders, you realise how TINY the place is. Even the smallest of nuclear warheads targeted at Israel would wipe out millions, Arabs and Jews alike.

 

And as for the rhetoric, yes, it's true that Ahmadinejad did not say '...off the map', but even if he had, it doesn't mean he's going to do it. Just as with the American politicians in the US primaries, you can say something for one audience which will go down badly with another. It's all part of a political calculation.

 

I do expect there to be trouble in the Straits. I do not expect a war. It's in no one's interest.

 

What form do you think this trouble will take? I think we can both agree that the West has recently gone to some lengths to isolate Iran, either through the depiction in the media or putting pressure on individual nations to stop trading with Iran. I understand that the Japanese are amongst the latest that have been leaned on in furtherance of this aim.

 

I can appreciate that there is a lot at stake here, but at the same time I have to ask what the end-game is. It doesn't appear as if the US or Israel wants to negotiate with Iran. Without negotiations, it could be argued that the only resolution on the table is war.

 

Israel is key, in my opinion. While we continue to give unwavering support to the Israel, we achieve two things. We remain an enemy by association in addition to tacitly validating Israeli behaviour. We say we believe in one set of values, yet are wilfully ignorant of those values being violated. We will invade countries that defy UN Resolutions, except for Israel. We cried foul about apartheid in South Africa, yet allow something very similar to happen in Gaza.

 

Israel getting to do what it wants with the full backing of the West is at the heart of the problem, treated almost as if its an immutable political truth. I can understand why we've backed them to the hilt historically, but ultimately, they need to be treated as we would treat any other ally. e.g. If they do something bad, our only involvement in the event should be the appropriate level of condemnation.

[pap]

And from Fox News, reports that Iran is to host UN nuclear inspectors.

 

Might cool things down some. Good.

[Window Cleaner]

And from Fox News, reports that Iran is to host UN nuclear inspectors.

 

Might cool things down some. Good.

 

Desperately trying to stave off the next hike in sanctions I expect but they'll play their usual hide and seek game and nothing will probably come of it.

Edited 13 January, 2012 by Window Cleaner

[aintforever]

And from Fox News, reports that Iran is to host UN nuclear inspectors.

 

Might cool things down some. Good.

 

Because that worked for Iraq!

 

if you remember rightly the US's first move was to threaten war if they wouldn't let inspectors into Iraq. Then still went to war regardless.

[Viking Warrior]

I think a few years ago there would have been a possibility. I dont think obama has the bottle to go to war against Iran especially inlight of his announcement to cut back significantly on ground troops. i know he he talks about using more special forces and technology but that is a few years away. So the despots of Syria and Iran will continue to flout human rights and UN Mandates. Im more worried abbout the israelis taken out iran nucleur sites and thus sparking mayhem in the region

[View From The Top]

It really isn't though. It would be fair, if that's what was said.

 

Suppose is just goes to show. True or not, soundbites really work.

 

The Islamic Revolution in Iran have previously called for Israel to the wiped from the face of the earth. Yes they have calmed their rhetoric but let's not pretend it's not happened.

[Verbal]

What form do you think this trouble will take? I think we can both agree that the West has recently gone to some lengths to isolate Iran, either through the depiction in the media or putting pressure on individual nations to stop trading with Iran. I understand that the Japanese are amongst the latest that have been leaned on in furtherance of this aim.

 

I can appreciate that there is a lot at stake here, but at the same time I have to ask what the end-game is. It doesn't appear as if the US or Israel wants to negotiate with Iran. Without negotiations, it could be argued that the only resolution on the table is war.

 

Israel is key, in my opinion. While we continue to give unwavering support to the Israel, we achieve two things. We remain an enemy by association in addition to tacitly validating Israeli behaviour. We say we believe in one set of values, yet are wilfully ignorant of those values being violated. We will invade countries that defy UN Resolutions, except for Israel. We cried foul about apartheid in South Africa, yet allow something very similar to happen in Gaza.

 

Israel getting to do what it wants with the full backing of the West is at the heart of the problem, treated almost as if its an immutable political truth. I can understand why we've backed them to the hilt historically, but ultimately, they need to be treated as we would treat any other ally. e.g. If they do something bad, our only involvement in the event should be the appropriate level of condemnation.

 

The end-game in Iran is regime change. But various American-led 'coalitions' have tried doing that with invasions and occupation, and finally hit upon a formula which kind of worked in Libya. (Kind of...) Any direct outside intervention in Iran cuts the 'green' opposition off at the knees. And that opposition is deeply rooted in a sophisticated, very well-educated, consumer-oriented, civil-rights-conscious middle class. So it's reasonable to assume that strategists in the West would advocate actions (or the lack of them) that buttress that opposition. There are a number of policy interventions that suggests this is the case, from sanctions targeted at regime frontmen to additional funding for the BBC's well-regarded (and much hated by the regime) Persian Service. These interventions also include very carefully calibrated contacts with key opposition figures like Mousavi.

 

As far as Israel is concerned, I'd disagree that 'the West' is unambiguous in its support. The US, certainly. Europe, not so much - and it's that equivocation that buys political space for interventions that don't squash the opposition in a 'it's-us-against-the-world' reaction that would necessarily follow overt aggression from the West.

 

PS: if you want in a very small way to support the opposition in Iran, go and see the movie "A Separation". Not only is it a great movie; films, which Iran is excelling at right now, are a key way of disseminating opposition ideas in the country

Edited 13 January, 2012 by Verbal

[dubai_phil]

The reality is that Iran isn't going to start lobbing nuclear weapons at Israel, whatever anyone says. If you've been to the Middle East, especially around the Israeli, Jordanian and Saudi borders, you realise how TINY the place is. Even the smallest of nuclear warheads targeted at Israel would wipe out millions, Arabs and Jews alike.

 

And as for the rhetoric, yes, it's true that Ahmadinejad did not say '...off the map', but even if he had, it doesn't mean he's going to do it. Just as with the American politicians in the US primaries, you can say something for one audience which will go down badly with another. It's all part of a political calculation.

 

I do expect there to be trouble in the Straits. I do not expect a war. It's in no one's interest.

 

I'm agreeing with Verbal - that's a first I think

 

Don't think many people who haven't been down here actually realise how dangerous "trouble in the Straits" can be to them.

 

It is a very narrow bottle neck well in reach of Missile Technology that Iran USED some 20/30 years ago (they still do diving trips to some of the Supertankers at the bottom of the Straits).

 

You have a HUGE percentage of the Gulf's Oil coming out through there - Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain (not so much these days) the main Abu Dhabi Fields and increasingly Iraq. China & Greece rely on Iranian oil.

 

Sure there are other sources, but if they start taking tankers out in retaliation it won't be only the price of fuel that people will have to worry about but also the availability.

 

A major jump in EU wide energy costs would be REALLY damaging to already damaged economies.

 

You can also guarantee that iIF Iran starts popping off Silkworm missiles, they'll do it from Populated areas just waiting for the Western Navies to retaliate and blow up a few hundred unfortunate civilians.

 

And then they close the air lanes which puts pressure elsewhere and delays and will increase the cost of airfreighted food stuffs and and and...

 

Obama isn't stupid enough to Bomb Iran....

 

Hmmm, but a bunch of Kids pressing Video Game buttons on Destroyers, hell a couple of missiles sent in the Direction of a US Nuclear Powered Carrier.

[buctootim]

Iran isnt going to start firing missiles at tankers in the straits. Using that scare to justify pre-emptive action of siome sort is ridiculous.

[alpine_saint]

Desperately trying to stave off the next hike in sanctions I expect but they'll play their usual hide and seek game and nothing will probably come of it.

 

Yep, game playing just like the N. Koreans.

 

It suits them at the moment to let inspectors into Site A whilst the bomb is assembled in Site B, and it makes them look co-operative and holds off further sanction tightening due to the gullible elements of the international community.

[alpine_saint]

Iran isnt going to start firing missiles at tankers in the straits. Using that scare to justify pre-emptive action of siome sort is ridiculous.

 

Ahhh. The "statement of opinion as fact" approach that is apparently so annoying.

 

Or did Mahmood tell you on the phone last night after his audience with Fidel Castro ???

[alpine_saint]

The end-game in Iran is regime change. But various American-led 'coalitions' have tried doing that with invasions and occupation, and finally hit upon a formula which kind of worked in Libya. (Kind of...) Any direct outside intervention in Iran cuts the 'green' opposition off at the knees. And that opposition is deeply rooted in a sophisticated, very well-educated, consumer-oriented, civil-rights-conscious middle class. So it's reasonable to assume that strategists in the West would advocate actions (or the lack of them) that buttress that opposition. There are a number of policy interventions that suggests this is the case, from sanctions targeted at regime frontmen to additional funding for the BBC's well-regarded (and much hated by the regime) Persian Service. These interventions also include very carefully calibrated contacts with key opposition figures like Mousavi.

 

As far as Israel is concerned, I'd disagree that 'the West' is unambiguous in its support. The US, certainly. Europe, not so much - and it's that equivocation that buys political space for interventions that don't squash the opposition in a 'it's-us-against-the-world' reaction that would necessarily follow overt aggression from the West.

 

PS: if you want in a very small way to support the opposition in Iran, go and see the movie "A Separation". Not only is it a great movie; films, which Iran is excelling at right now, are a key way of disseminating opposition ideas in the country

 

F**k me you've banged on about this "green revolution" all bloody afternoon.

 

Did anybody bother telling you it FAILED in 2009 ? You make it sound like a work-in-progress. Yeah, right

 

Khameni will NEVER let Iran free itself from the cleric rule.

Edited 13 January, 2012 by alpine_saint

[alpine_saint]

The Islamic Revolution in Iran have previously called for Israel to the wiped from the face of the earth. Yes they have calmed their rhetoric but let's not pretend it's not happened.

 

Or that the underlying attitude has changed.

[buctootim]

Ahhh. The "statement of opinion as fact" approach that is apparently so annoying.

 

Or did Mahmood tell you on the phone last night after his audience with Fidel Castro ???

 

Of course its my opinion, its my post. Why is it you cant cope with opinions without getting ****y?

[alpine_saint]

Why is it you cant cope with opinions without getting ****y?

 

That sentence should be the bloody epitaph for this site...

 

I am always being criticised for expressing my opinion in terms that appear to be fact.

[Verbal]

F**k me you've banged on about this "green revolution" all bloody afternoon.

 

Did anybody bother telling you it FAILED in 2009 ?

 

Khameni will NEVER let Iran free itself from the cleric rule.

 

Just as Assad would never tolerate any opposition, nor Gaddafi tolerate even a whisper of dissent. And Mubarak will simply murder any rebellious Egyptians. As for Tunisia - not a chance.

 

BTW, this is the last response from me to any of your posts on this subject. You're really beyond common sense.

[alpine_saint]

Just as Assad would never tolerate any opposition, nor Gaddafi tolerate even a whisper of dissent. And Mubarak will simply murder any rebellious Egyptians. As for Tunisia - not a chance.

 

BTW, this is the last response from me to any of your posts on this subject. You're really beyond common sense.

 

And you call me self-opinionated....

 

There is not a shred of evidence to suggest the clerics in Iran are on the way out, and Assad is still there (probably with Iranian support)

[Sheaf Saint]

That sentence should be the bloody epitaph for this site...

 

I am always being criticised for expressing my opinion in terms that appear to be fact.

 

That's because you do, and then you have the audacity to berate other users for exactly the same thing. Is it really any wonder you get so many negative comments when you are utterly incapable of entering into any serious debate without getting all defensive when you are proven wrong and attacking other posters because they don't agree with you?

[Sheaf Saint]

And you call me self-opinionated....

 

There is not a shred of evidence to suggest the clerics in Iran are on the way out, and Assad is still there (probably with Iranian support)

 

Not currently, no. But the events following the last elections show that there is some very strong opposition to the clerical rule within Iran which is never far from the surface.

[Viking Warrior]

Please stop the use of the F Word alpine in your posts Im sure you can use a more sensible adjective or verb depending on what your trying to convey . Thanks Alpine

[alpine_saint]

Please stop the use of the F Word alpine in your posts Im sure you can use a more sensible adjective or verb depending on what your trying to convey . Thanks Alpine

 

I thought you were ignoring me ?

[alpine_saint]

That's because you do, and then you have the audacity to berate other users for exactly the same thing. Is it really any wonder you get so many negative comments when you are utterly incapable of entering into any serious debate without getting all defensive when you are proven wrong and attacking other posters because they don't agree with you?

 

Give your whining a rest. I am not taking criticism for my behaviour seriously when the same behviour is totally ignored in others.

[alpine_saint]

Not currently, no. But the events following the last elections show that there is some very strong opposition to the clerical rule within Iran which is never far from the surface.

 

Every time any sort of dissent threatens to surface the clerics turn up the heat. Come the next elections, Facebook and Twitter will be blocked, guaranteed.

[Window Cleaner]

Facebook and Twitter will be blocked, guaranteed.

 

 

wouldn't be such a bad thing anywhere really.Far too much production time is wasted on those gimmicks.

[Sheaf Saint]

Give your whining a rest. I am not taking criticism for my behaviour seriously when the same behviour is totally ignored in others.

 

And therein lies the problem.

[Viking Warrior]

Alpine I am but you have been quoted yet again so I get to see unfortunatley some of the language you use

[buctootim]

Alpine I am but you have been quoted yet again so I get to see unfortunatley some of the language you use

 

Ive just added him too. Tried to engage him constructively but ultimately its pointless. Whether he is a WUM or has some personality disorder I don't know, but cant be arsed with his petulance and inability to articulate reasonably.

[hypochondriac]

That sentence should be the bloody epitaph for this site...

 

I am always being criticised for expressing my opinion in terms that appear to be fact.

 

TBF you quite often express your opinion in an overly aggressive manner, often when you have been replied to in a civil manner.

[Verbal]

Can we please forget Alpine? I'm not in favour generally of ignoring anyone, but this was an engaging thread until he came along and turned it into a thread about him. Again.

[Viking Warrior]

Back to Iran. The straights of Hormuz. Is a bit of a powder keg . Who can forget Iran arresting those navy bods the other year . There might be the odd sabre rattling but I don't think well I hope not that there will be a war

[buctootim]

Back to Iran. The straights of Hormuz. Is a bit of a powder keg . Who can forget Iran arresting those navy bods the other year . There might be the odd sabre rattling but I don't think well I hope not that there will be a war

 

Hopefully not with Obama. Could be a different scenario if Bush the younger were in power.

[Viking Warrior]

Buctootim I was thinking that earlier . Bush would have mobilised his forces by now and the entire us 6th fleet would be patrolling the straights . It's not clear what Obama would do but I wouldn't be surprised if he had special forces in Iran

[View From The Top]

I was in the gulf during the Iran/Iraq war. That was fun, in a young, dumb and up for excitement way until the idiots yanks shot down an airliner. After that we were worried for a bit.

[View From The Top]

Ive just added him too. Tried to engage him constructively but ultimately its pointless. Whether he is a WUM or has some personality disorder I don't know, but cant be arsed with his petulance and inability to articulate reasonably.

 

And he wonders why so many have him on ignore.

[alpine_saint]

And he wonders why so many have him on ignore.

 

Nope. I dont actually.

 

The lounge is a joke anyway. Its's like a Stoodent Union debating society - full of US-hating lefties.

[alpine_saint]

Ive just added him too. Tried to engage him constructively but ultimately its pointless. Whether he is a WUM or has some personality disorder I don't know, but cant be arsed with his petulance and inability to articulate reasonably.

 

Another one takes his ball home but leaves a stream of abuse that he hides from the response to.

[Sheaf Saint]

Nope. I dont actually.

 

The lounge is a joke anyway. Its's like a Stoodent Union debating society - full of US-hating lefties.

 

Oh sweet Jesus, I don't know why I am still humouring you but can you honestly not see that there is a world of difference between being critical of US foreign policy based on reasoned analysis and being a 'US-hating leftie?'

 

Throwing stupid, over-simplistic stereotypes at people just because they disagree with you is never going to win you any support, and is one of the many reasons you get so many negative responses from people.

[alpine_saint]

Oh sweet Jesus, I don't know why I am still humouring you but can you honestly not see that there is a world of difference between being critical of US foreign policy based on reasoned analysis and being a 'US-hating leftie?'

 

Throwing stupid, over-simplistic stereotypes at people just because they disagree with you is never going to win you any support, and is one of the many reasons you get so many negative responses from people.

 

What, like being accused of being mentally ill/unstable just because my opinion doesnt come off the editor of the Guardian's last empty fag packet ?

[Sheaf Saint]

What, like being accused of being mentally ill/unstable just because my opinion doesnt come off the editor of the Guardian's last empty fag packet ?

 

I'm not going to indulge you any more Alpine. This was an interesting debate until you turned it into yet another 'everybody look at me' thread. I wouldn't mind if you actually took on board some of the comments in a constructive manner, but you seem to be incapable of seeing anything which challenges your viewpoint as anything other than a personal attack on you.

[alpine_saint]

I'm not going to indulge you any more Alpine. This was an interesting debate until you turned it into yet another 'everybody look at me' thread. I wouldn't mind if you actually took on board some of the comments in a constructive manner, but you seem to be incapable of seeing anything which challenges your viewpoint as anything other than a personal attack on you.

 

You didnt answer any of the points I made either, like the burying of the "medical isotope" enrichment facilities in the mountains and deep underground, the UN and IAEA assessments, the recent threats made by Iran, etc.

Also you didnt answer if my difference of opinion justified me being called mentally ill.

 

Oh the utter, utter hypocrisy of the left-wing "superstars" on this thread.

[aintforever]

You didnt answer any of the points I made either, like the burying of the "medical isotope" enrichment facilities in the mountains and deep underground, the UN and IAEA assessments, the recent threats made by Iran, etc.

Also you didnt answer if my difference of opinion justified me being called mentally ill.

 

Oh the utter, utter hypocrisy of the left-wing "superstars" on this thread.

 

Of course they are hiding stuff, if you're going to build a deterrent you are not going to signpost where it is to your potential enemies. It defeats the point.

[alpine_saint]

Of course they are hiding stuff, if you're going to build a deterrent you are not going to signpost where it is to your potential enemies. It defeats the point.

 

Sorry mate, Bexy even had the nerve yesterday to argue that Iran are not builiding nukes.

 

Besides, there are signposts and signposts. Large construction sites, wherever they are in the age of satellite photoreconnaisasnce, are pretty big signpost, thought I dont exclude the possibility that one or two of these sites are decoys.

[Jonnyboy]

Nope. I dont actually.

 

The lounge is a joke anyway. Its's like a Stoodent Union debating society - full of US-hating lefties.

 

Please insult Baj, then you can be with the other rejects on UI.

[Sheaf Saint]

Sorry mate, Bexy even had the nerve yesterday to argue that Iran are not builiding nukes.

 

No, I didn't. I expressed my opinion that I didn't think they were building one with the specific intent of attacking Israel, and I linked to a video showing the US defence secretary admitting that they are not actually building a bomb - just the capability. Again, you have taken what I posted and interpreted it in your own way.

 

Besides, there are signposts and signposts. Large construction sites, wherever they are in the age of satellite photoreconnaisasnce, are pretty big signpost, thought I dont exclude the possibility that one or two of these sites are decoys.

 

Point taken, but even our own AWE at Aldermaston was a massive secret for many years. Has it occurred to you that perhaps they are using an underground facility simply because they don't want the Americans or Israelis to bomb it?

[alpine_saint]

No, I didn't. I expressed my opinion that I didn't think they were building one with the specific intent of attacking Israel, and I linked to a video showing the US defence secretary admitting that they are not actually building a bomb - just the capability. Again, you have taken what I posted and interpreted it in your own way.

 

 

 

Point taken, but even our own AWE at Aldermaston was a massive secret for many years. Has it occurred to you that perhaps they are using an underground facility simply because they don't want the Americans or Israelis to bomb it?

 

Why would they bomb it if it had peaceful intentions ?

 

You cannot escape the physics of the matter. The UN and IAEA, and intelligence of Iran's purchasing activity, indicates that the amount and configuration of the centrifuges that Iran has means they are trying to enrich uranium far beyond the requirement of ANY peaceful purpose. And the trail of breadcrumbs indicates that they have been located underground in exceptionally strengthened buildings.

 

This is a weapons program, there is no other purpose to it. That's why there is a chance it will get bombed. And dont forget the Yanks have designed the conventional bombs to do it.

 

As for your comment about Aldermaston - its like Area 51. Everyone knew it existed and its purpose well before any official recognition of its existence or its real activity was made. In the case of Aldermaston this is evern worse, because Britain is a pretty densely populated nation, so Aldermaston doesnt have hundreds of miles of desert around it.