Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

Iran-Israeli Crisis

Israel Iran nuclear dear USA Trump war Syria Russia Persian Gulf Middle East

  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,430 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

Well, it looks like something's actually coming of this so I'm opening a thread to discuss it. Thread title is alterable by mods, obviously, and it's possible that it will need to be altered. Pray it isn't.
 

Israel says it has spotted Iranian military movement in Syria

Orders readying of bomb shelters on Israeli-held Golan

As President Donald Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal Tuesday, Israel has prepared for a possible attack from Tehran based on “irregular” movements by Iranian forces in Syria.
The Israel Defense Forces ordered authorities in the northern Golan Heights, held by Israelis, to “unlock and ready (bomb) shelters,” Reuters reported.
Related: Trump Has Several Nuclear Bomb Shelters But There's 'No Defense' Against A Direct Hit, Expert Says
Defense systems were activated and troops “are on high alert for an attack,” the military’s statement read, according to the news outlet.


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#2
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,430 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

Trump Tells Macron the U.S. Will Withdraw From Iran Nuclear Deal

President Trump declared on Tuesday that he was pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal, unraveling the signature foreign policy achievement of his predecessor, Barack Obama, and isolating the United States among its Western allies.
 
“This was a horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made,” Mr. Trump said at the White House in announcing his decision. “It didn’t bring calm, it didn’t bring peace, and it never will.”

Mr. Trump’s announcement, while long anticipated and widely telegraphed, plunges America’s relations with European allies into deep uncertainty. They have committed to staying in the deal, raising the prospect of a diplomatic and economic clash as the United States reimposes stringent sanctions on Iran.


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#3
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,430 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

Israel Golan Heights alert over Iran 'irregular activity' in Syria

The Israeli military says it has detected "irregular Iranian activity" in Syria and has told authorities in the occupied Golan Heights to open and prepare bomb shelters.
It said troops were "on high alert for an attack" in the area, which is Syrian territory under Israeli control.
Meanwhile Syria said an Israeli air strike had targeted an area south of Damascus.
It came as President Trump said the US would quit the Iran nuclear deal.


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#4
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,430 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

Iran to Prepare Itself for Resuming Uranium Enrichment: Rouhani

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, in a live speech after Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, announced that Tehran will resume its uranium enrichment at an industrial level if other parties to the accord fail to keep the Islamic Republic in the JCPOA.

Addressing the nation on Tuesday night after Trump pulled the US out of the nuclear deal, Rouhani said “from now on, the Iran nuclear deal will be a deal between Iran and five countries. The P5+1 has lost one of its members.”
“I’ve ordered the foreign ministry to start talks with other parties to the nuclear deal within the coming weeks. After these talks, if we are assured that we can achieve what we wanted from the deal through cooperation with other parties, JCPOA will remain in place,” he noted.
“Otherwise, I’ll soon address the nation and share with them the Establishment’s decision regarding the Iran nuclear deal.”


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#5
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,430 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#6
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,430 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

PoppinKREAM 

 

So there are a number of factors at play here. Russia stands to benefit economically while Trump's administration is filled with foreign policy warhawks.

President Trump is reneging on a multi-lateral nuclear peace agreement that was agreed upon by the P5 members, Iran, and the European Union[1] - it was a long and arduous process. We know Iran is abiding by the agreement, but President Trump wants to rescind the agreement which will in turn lead to higher oil prices.[2] Oil prices were at their highest point since 2014 due to Trump's rhetoric,[3] fear grew of the United States leaving the deal. Higher oil prices are great for the Russian economy while lower oil prices are terrible for the Russian economy.[4] Current rising oil prices are great for the Russian economy while they face sanctions.[5]

President Trump chose a new National Security Adviser, John Bolton, who is well known for wanting war with Iran.[6]The new Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has also turned up the anti-Iran rhetoric.[7]

The National Security Adviser is meant to be the mediator between a more diplomatic approach via the State Department and a more forceful approach via the Department of Defense. According to retired army General McCraffey, John Bolton is the worst choice for NSA.[8] We now have former CIA director Pompeo leading the State Department and a warmonger in Bolton as the National Security Adviser dictating foreign policy, our hope rests squarely on the shoulders of the Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis. It doesn't help that Mike Pompeo has ties to islamophobic groups, is a climate change denier, is against equal lgbtq rights and is eager to scrap the Iran nuclear deal.[9] John Bolton wants war with Iran and has an Islamophobia problem himself.[10]

John Bolton is a dangerous man.

He has already begun to reverse General McMaster's changes. I fear we may see the return of some terrifying things in the near future. Most people may not remember the Deep State Memo conspiracy that eventually led to a number of Flynn layovers being forcibly removed from their positions from the NSC.[11]

These people were pushed out for promoting a leftist conspiracy against President Trump.[12] I can't begin to imagine what Bolton has planned, he is a man seeking war.[13] John Bolton is a national security risk.[14]

The memo at the heart of the latest blowup at the National Security Council paints a dark picture of media, academics, the “deep state,” and other enemies allegedly working to subvert U.S. President Donald Trump, according to a copy of the document obtained by Foreign Policy.

The seven-page document, which eventually landed on the president’s desk, precipitated a crisis that led to the departure of several high-level NSC officials tied to former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. The author of the memo, Rich Higgins, who was in the strategic planning office at the NSC, was among those recently pushed out.

The full memo, dated May 2017, is titled “POTUS & Political Warfare.” It provides a sweeping, if at times conspiratorial, view of what it describes as a multi-pronged attack on the Trump White House.

Trump is being attacked, the memo says, because he represents “an existential threat to cultural Marxist memes that dominate the prevailing cultural narrative.” Those threatened by Trump include “‘deep state’ actors, globalists, bankers, Islamists, and establishment Republicans.”

The memo is part of a broader political struggle inside the White House between current National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and alt-right operatives with a nationalist worldview who believe the Army general and his crew are subverting the president’s agenda.

John Bolton threatened the family of a former diplomat for negotiating with Saddam Hussein to allow weapons inspectors into the country, the diplomat was going against the Bush administration's rhetoric leading up to the Iraq war. The Brazilian diplomat was the former Director General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, he was negotiating with Saddam Hussein to allow weapons inspectors to make unannounced visits to Iraq. John Bolton traveled to the OPCW headquarters in the Hague and threatened the Director General's children if he did not quit.[15]

The United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, its top diplomat, has an islamophobia problem[16] and the National Security Adviser who is meant to be the mediator between a diplomatic or forceful foreign policy approach is a warhawk.[17] We have to rely on the Secretary of Defense for a more nuanced foreign policy approach. This is absurd.

1) U.S. State Department - Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action

2) Washington Post - What Trump’s decision on Iran nuclear deal means for oil prices

3) Wall Street Journal - Oil Prices Reach Highest Level Since 2014

4) Investopedia - How does the price of oil affect Russia's economy?

5) New York Times - Rising Oil Prices Buoy Russia’s Economy, Despite Sanctions

6) The American Conservative - The Untold Story of John Bolton’s Campaign for War With Iran

7) Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty - Pompeo Arrives in Saudi Arabia, Pushes Hard Line On Iran

8) MSNBC - General McCaffrey: Bolton 'worst choice' for NSA

9) Washington Post - Trump’s would-be secretary of state has an Islamophobia problem

10) New York Times - Pompeo and Bolton Appointments Raise Alarm Over Ties to Anti-Islam Groups

11) Foreign Policy - Here’s the Memo That Blew Up the NSC 

12) New York Times - White House Aide Forced Out After Claim of Leftist Conspiracy

13) The Telegraph - ‘If you want peace, prepare for war’: John Bolton sets out strategy as Trump’s new national security adviser

14) Foreign Policy - John Bolton Is a National Security Threat

15) The Intercept - "We know where your kids live": How John Bolton once threatened an International Official

16) Slate - “This Evil Is All Around Us”; Trump’s pick for the CIA, Mike Pompeo, sees foreign policy as a vehicle for holy war.

17) CNN - World wary as Trump turns to hardliners Bolton and Pompeo

 


  • caltrek likes this

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#7
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,430 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

KindfOfABigDeal

Stop me if you heard this one before: An unpopular GOP president who won the election despite losing the popular vote is now pushing for a very aggressive stance against a Middle Eastern country that is 4 letters long and begins with an "I" over suspected weapons of mass destruction that no one has proof of, they just want you to trust their secret intel.

 
GuyInAChair

Let's take a moment to appreciate that in an agreement that included Russia, Iran, and the USA, it ended up being the US that was the unreliable party.


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#8
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,430 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

Oh, and if this escalates to a shooting war, kiss detente with North Korea goodbye.


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#9
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,430 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

Germany, France vow to stick to Iran deal if U.S. pulls out

Germany and France on Monday vowed to stand by the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers even if the United States pulls out, with the German foreign minister saying the world would be less safe without it.
U.S. President Donald Trump has threatened to retreat from the deal by not extending sanctions waivers when they expire on May 12, unless European signatories of the accord fix what he calls its “flaws”.
German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said it was clear that the agreement made the world securer and there was a risk of escalation were it to be canceled.


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#10
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,042 posts

KindofaBigDeal has nailed it.

 

What better way to make Mueller go away than to start up a war?

 

....and remember when so many of you were against Hillary because she was too much of  a hawk?

 

...any second thoughts?


  • wjfox and Yuli Ban like this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#11
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,430 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

Kim Jong Un Is Watching Trump's Iran Decision, Chinese Envoy Says

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un will be eyeing closely what Donald Trump decides on the Iran nuclear deal, with potential repercussions for their upcoming summit, according to China’s former ambassador to Pyongyang.

“The DPRK is watching,” said Liu Xiaoming, China’s current envoy to the U.K., who served in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea from 2006-2009. “If you walk away from a deal agreed to by your previous administration, it will set a bad example.”


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#12
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,042 posts

Actually, this does make the whole Korean thing make more sense.  Clear the decks on the East Asian front so as to concentrate on the Middle East.  One wonders what payoff is going to be being (has been?) offered to Kim Jong Un.  


  • Sciencerocks and Yuli Ban like this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#13
As We Rise

As We Rise

    On and off and on and off.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 720 posts

Truly frightening.

 

https://youtu.be/wVbjNY7H8lk


  • wjfox, Sciencerocks and Yuli Ban like this

Ethnic nationalism is a necessity in order to preserve true diversity of cultures. 


#14
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,367 posts
  • LocationLondon

Statement from Barack Obama:

 

https://www.facebook...155854913976749

 

 

There are few issues more important to the security of the United States than the potential spread of nuclear weapons, or the potential for even more destructive war in the Middle East. That’s why the United States negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in the first place.

 

The reality is clear. The JCPOA is working – that is a view shared by our European allies, independent experts, and the current U.S. Secretary of Defense. The JCPOA is in America’s interest – it has significantly rolled back Iran’s nuclear program. And the JCPOA is a model for what diplomacy can accomplish – its inspections and verification regime is precisely what the United States should be working to put in place with North Korea. Indeed, at a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away from the JCPOA risks losing a deal that accomplishes – with Iran – the very outcome that we are pursuing with the North Koreans.

 

That is why today’s announcement is so misguided. Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America’s closest allies, and an agreement that our country’s leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals negotiated. In a democracy, there will always be changes in policies and priorities from one Administration to the next. But the consistent flouting of agreements that our country is a party to risks eroding America’s credibility, and puts us at odds with the world’s major powers.

 

Debates in our country should be informed by facts, especially debates that have proven to be divisive. So it’s important to review several facts about the JCPOA.

 

First, the JCPOA was not just an agreement between my Administration and the Iranian government. After years of building an international coalition that could impose crippling sanctions on Iran, we reached the JCPOA together with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia, China, and Iran. It is a multilateral arms control deal, unanimously endorsed by a United Nations Security Council Resolution.

 

Second, the JCPOA has worked in rolling back Iran’s nuclear program. For decades, Iran had steadily advanced its nuclear program, approaching the point where they could rapidly produce enough fissile material to build a bomb. The JCPOA put a lid on that breakout capacity. Since the JCPOA was implemented, Iran has destroyed the core of a reactor that could have produced weapons-grade plutonium; removed two-thirds of its centrifuges (over 13,000) and placed them under international monitoring; and eliminated 97 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium – the raw materials necessary for a bomb. So by any measure, the JCPOA has imposed strict limitations on Iran's nuclear program and achieved real results.

 

Third, the JCPOA does not rely on trust – it is rooted in the most far-reaching inspections and verification regime ever negotiated in an arms control deal. Iran’s nuclear facilities are strictly monitored. International monitors also have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain, so that we can catch them if they cheat. Without the JCPOA, this monitoring and inspections regime would go away.

 

Fourth, Iran is complying with the JCPOA. That was not simply the view of my Administration. The United States intelligence community has continued to find that Iran is meeting its responsibilities under the deal, and has reported as much to Congress. So have our closest allies, and the international agency responsible for verifying Iranian compliance – the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

 

Fifth, the JCPOA does not expire. The prohibition on Iran ever obtaining a nuclear weapon is permanent. Some of the most important and intrusive inspections codified by the JCPOA are permanent. Even as some of the provisions in the JCPOA do become less strict with time, this won’t happen until ten, fifteen, twenty, or twenty-five years into the deal, so there is little reason to put those restrictions at risk today.

 

Finally, the JCPOA was never intended to solve all of our problems with Iran. We were clear-eyed that Iran engages in destabilizing behavior – including support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel and its neighbors. But that’s precisely why it was so important that we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Every aspect of Iranian behavior that is troubling is far more dangerous if their nuclear program is unconstrained. Our ability to confront Iran’s destabilizing behavior – and to sustain a unity of purpose with our allies – is strengthened with the JCPOA, and weakened without it.

 

Because of these facts, I believe that the decision to put the JCPOA at risk without any Iranian violation of the deal is a serious mistake. Without the JCPOA, the United States could eventually be left with a losing choice between a nuclear-armed Iran or another war in the Middle East. We all know the dangers of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. It could embolden an already dangerous regime; threaten our friends with destruction; pose unacceptable dangers to America’s own security; and trigger an arms race in the world’s most dangerous region. If the constraints on Iran’s nuclear program under the JCPOA are lost, we could be hastening the day when we are faced with the choice between living with that threat, or going to war to prevent it.

 

In a dangerous world, America must be able to rely in part on strong, principled diplomacy to secure our country. We have been safer in the years since we achieved the JCPOA, thanks in part to the work of our diplomats, many members of Congress, and our allies. Going forward, I hope that Americans continue to speak out in support of the kind of strong, principled, fact-based, and unifying leadership that can best secure our country and uphold our responsibilities around the globe.

 


  • Yuli Ban and Maximus like this

#15
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,367 posts
  • LocationLondon

https://twitter.com/...731975432728576



#16
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 203 posts

Truly frightening.

 

https://youtu.be/wVbjNY7H8lk

 

Frightening, but really interesting (to watch this all from safe distance).

 

So, you're guys listening the war drums? No, relax, there will be nothing serious in the near future. You will need tens (or hundreds) of thousands soldiers plus hundreds (or thousands) of tanks to defeat Iran. So far, there is no any sign of such preparations. Unlike, btw, of calm, silent, and serious preparations on Russian western border...

 

But yes, the big war has become one step closer... and btw, mercenary armies are good for everything except serious wars and serious losses. So, those of you who are relatively young, should mentally prepare yourself to possible conscription.

 

....and remember when so many of you were against Hillary because she was too much of  a hawk?

 

...any second thoughts?

 

Trump just wasn't strong enough to "drain the swamp". Instead, the swamp drained him. His initial team was destroyed, he was deprived of real power and now surrounded by those same people who were behind Hillary's back in 2016. Sad.

 

=== === ===

 

Anyway, ignore this and enjoy life... I'm now celebrating the Victory Day, just returned from military parade and now going to go to the beach (thanks to unnaturally warm weather). Driven by curiosity, I came here to see "how are they there, my old friends/enemies in FT?" Nothing beyond that...



#17
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020's the decade of our reckoning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,869 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

Wow my Russian friend has excellent English now.


The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth. 


#18
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,430 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

The non-accelerationist side of me greatly fears the prospect of an Iran-US War. And I can give you several reasons why.
 
I said in the status update that a war with Iran is not like one with Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam. It'll be worse than all three combined. I can easily see an Iran-US War leading to at least 100,000 US deaths and ten times as many non-fatal casualties if it lasts longer than a few months— which it certainly will. 
There are many reasons, as aforementioned, and here they are:
 
Reason One
Iran literally isn't Iraq. The geography of the country is wholly different, filled with the one thing that has always been the bane of invading armies: mountains. When we invaded Iraq, we moved in through the Persian Gulf and Kuwait and drove to Baghdad. Southern Iraq is basically a table, a vast plain of grassy fields and sandy stretches with virtually no change in elevation besides palm trees. It's the softest underbelly imaginable for a military considering it's the only part of the entire country connected directly to a highly strategic gulf that extends into the Indian ocean.
Iran, however, is nothing but raw mountain with very few plains and one big plateau.
800px-Iran_topo_en.jpg
 
This is why the Persian Empire was so mighty— no one could really stop them without fucking about in mountains until Alexander pulled it off. 
A war with Iran would devolve into mountain hopping. 
 
Reason Two
 
Iran has been preparing precisely for this. When the US attacked Iraq in 1991, we took Saddam's forces entirely by surprise. When we left, Iraq fell off our radar for a decade. Then we suddenly struck in 2003 when our attention was supposed to be on Afghanistan. Meanwhile, we had been antagonizing Iran for half a century by that point, with a coup in the 1950s and actively fighting them during the Iraq-Iran War. Iran has been preparing for us. 

Saddam Hussein’s army ― although one of the strongest in the Middle East in terms of size ― was no match for the U.S. military. Within three weeks, the Iraqi army had been completely defeated. In fact, the overwhelming majority (roughly 90 percent) of American deaths in Iraq did not come as a result of the initial invasion ― they came during the ensuing occupation.

Saddam’s military was so easily crushed partly because the Iraqi dictator had put all of his eggs in one basket: A conventional military. In a direct force-on-force confrontation with the U.S., no conventional military in the Middle East stands a chance.


That’s precisely why the Iranians have prepared a completely different strategy.


The Iranians know very well that the American public has little tolerance for war casualties. Thus, their defense strategy has been primarily aimed at deterring an attack by preparing attrition warfare that raises America’s risks and costs. Instead of focusing on reducing Iran’s own costs, the goal would be to cause as many U.S. casualties as early and as quickly as possible in order to strike a massive psychological blow to America’s willingness to continue the fight. The strategy is not focused on directly defeating the U.S., but rather to make the cost of victory politically non-viable for America.
 

In 2002, the Pentagon spent $250 million on a classified U.S. war game called Millennium Challenge. The game envisioned the U.S. Navy facing a coordinated Iranian assault in the Persian Gulf using swarming boats and missiles. The results were so devastating the exercise was suspended and the parameters controversially changed to ensure a U.S. victory: The Iranians sank a total of 16 American ships ― including an aircraft carrier.


Moreover, since Iranians cannot match Saudi Arabia and UAE’s vast military expenditures on high-tech Western (mainly American) weaponry, including a strong air force, they have strategically focused on missile capabilities. This partly explains why Tehren’s military expenditures are dwarfed by those of its rivals: The U.S. spends roughly 49 times as much on arms compared to Iran, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Saudi Arabia outspends Iran by a factor of five, and even tiny UAE spends roughly twice as much as Iran on defense.


Instead, Iran is estimated to have the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East. Iran’s easily camouflaged missiles are well positioned to target both ports and airfields around the region, likely frustrating any American military build-up in preparation for an assault. Ballistic missiles also enable Tehran to uphold its defense motto that the region is either safe for all or for no one.
“Iran will never start any war,” then-IRGC commander Mohsen Rezaei said in 1997, but if the U.S. attacked first “we will turn the region into a slaughterhouse for them. There is no greater place than the Persian Gulf to destroy America’s might.”

But Iran’s defense strategy is not limited to slaughter in a military sense. By temporarily closing the Strait of Hormuz ― a strategic maritime choke point through which roughly 30 percent of the world’s oil supply passes ― Tehran could inflict massive damage to the world economy, causing oil prices to skyrocket and likely compelling other great powers to intervene to put an end to the war. Indeed, even a brief closure of the strait would create enough ambiguity and uncertainty to “drive up shipping insurance and other costs to astronomical heights,” a senior European diplomat told the Christian Science Monitor in 2012.


Iran’s asymmetric strategy likely also has a cyber component. Iran is already considered to have one of the world’s most sophisticated cyber armies and it has already shown its readiness to strike the U.S. in response to American cyberattacks (the U.S. and Israel famously engaged in very sophisticated cybersabotage of Iran’s nuclear program.)

Source: https://www.huffingt...4b055e50acc2e82
 
Reason Three

Iran is competent. Iraq wasn't.
Iraq bungled the Iraq-Iran War, nearly disintegrated during the Persian Gulf War, actually disintegrated during the Iraq War, and threw down its weapons and ran during the ISIS Blitzkrieg. This despite supposedly having one of the finest militaries in the world. The only one I can truly buy is the Persian Gulf War— the coalition that erupted across Iraq for that was unstoppable, and I can imagine that the Iraqi army was not intending on facing the USA head on. But they should have won the Iraq-Iran War. There should have been more of a fight in the Iraq War, before the insurgency filled in the gaps. And the entire military gave up when the ISIS horde started moving. 
Iran's last big war was the Iraq-Iran War, but they actually seemed impressive.
 
Blindweaponsfumbler

There’s literally a comparison. Iraq and Iran thought each other to a stalemate. https://en.wikipedia...i/Iran–Iraq_War
 
They are on par.

 

Yuli-Ban

They are most definitely not on par. If anything, reading more about the Iraq-Iran War made me realize just how stupidly badly a war with Iran would actually go.
 
Iran was coming directly out of a tumultuous revolution and was disorganized and scattered amongst itself while also being all alone. Oh, it had the support of North Korea and Libya. Don't they know it's Christmastime. There was the Iran-Contra Affair, which proved inconsequential.
 
Meanwhile, Iraq had the support of the United States and even the USSR. I want you to think about that for a moment. Iraq was able to get support from both the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the 1980s. It's like getting fundamentalist Christians and militant atheists to unite for your cause. It had a modern military (for its time) and weapons of mass destruction (ironically). It also had dozens of billions of dollars all but given to it to accomplish its goals.
 
Despite all that, Iraq got its ass kicked until right near the very end of the war. Iran was literally on the offensive for most of the war, but it wasn't looking to take over Iraq since it was just trying to defend itself and perhaps spread its shitty fundamentalist ideology in the process.
 
So let's recap.
 
While completely internally disorganized, Iran almost singlehandedly fought off an international coalition in the '80s, even maintaining being on the winning side for most of the war despite Iraq being much better armed and funded and even with the US military getting directly involved at times. The best Iraq could ever do was reach a stalemate, and even that was difficult to do.

 
In other words, a war with Iran would be an actual fight. We're not ready for a fight. We've grown far too used to bombing insurgent farmers for the past 50 years. Iraq lulled us by not putting up a damn fight two times in a row, instead surrendering en masse. 
 

Reason Four
 
Iran is a close ally of Russia and China. Right now, Russia is retreating. They're slashing military funding and focusing more on just trying to function as a country. They can't fight a war themselves. But they can definitely sell their guns to someone who needs them. Iran is part of the Eurasian Alliance, and historically Iran and Russia have been close. Same deal with China. China needs some event to prove that they're ready for their superpower debut and their military desperately needs some battlefield experience. What better place and time than a great routing of America in Iran? 
 
Reason Five
 
We don't want to fight another war. We went into Iraq because Iraq invaded Kuwait. Literally the entire world condemned Iraq for this, so it was a war that many felt was justified. We went into Afghanistan as revenge for 9/11, and again, we felt this was justified. When we tried our luck with Iraq again, that's when there was an extraordinary pushback across the entire planet, the largest anti-war protests in history. There was no reason to go into Iraq. But we were too whipped up into hysterics as a result of 9/11 so our rationality was shot. The right-wing especially had a field day calling anyone and everyone against the war "un-American". But it seemed we had at least accomplished our goals right up until it became blatantly obvious we were getting ground up for no reason and it became clear we went into the country to find non-existent WMDs. So we made up some bullshit about spreading freedom and democracy that no one bought. Then began another decade of endless war, further wearing us down. We're more war-weary now than we were after Vietnam. We wasted trillions of dollars on literally nothing at all. We made the world much less safe and are roleplaying as Rome. 
And now we're thinking about going into Iran? For what reason?
Iran is an industrialized nation with a modern economy that has a conservative government and isn't committing any atrocities besides not liking America. Oh, the supreme leader doesn't like Jews! The inhumanity, while our leaders are calling Muslims "invaders" and actively bombing them while also acting surprised that said Muslims are running to wealthier countries for shelter as if they're doing it on purpose! Are we going to make up some bullshit about WMDs again? We're tired! We want to bring our men and women home. 
 
If we go to war with Iran, we're going to face the fire we've been fortunate to avoid. 
 
 
And that isn't even the worst-case scenario. Worst-case scenario is that Iran calls upon Russia and China for military assistance and they grant it. For whatever reason, we keep thinking that nations won't risk total global annihilation for someone else's sake, despite the fact that the US and the USSR nearly destroyed the world over Cuba and then again in 1983 over war games.


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#19
starspawn0

starspawn0

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
I don't know much about the present crisis over Iran, but do recall that the safeguards were pretty good against their being able to make nukes. I seem to recall there was even an article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. There was also a former Mossad chief who came out in support of the deal. It sounds to me like a big mistake to pull out.

I have noticed, however, that Abby Martin is getting some air-time lately over this. Recall that she had her own show on RT America. She's an interesting case -- an example of a 9/11 Truther who managed to pull her career out of the fire. One would expect being a 9/11 Troofer would be a career-ending move.

Concerning the main topic of this thread -- Iran-Israel tensions, and Syria -- I don't know enough about it to comment. Sounds like the war-drums are beating loudly.

#20
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,367 posts
  • LocationLondon

Jon B. "Globalist" Wolfsthal
‏Verified account @JBWolfsthal
22 hours ago

Let's stop saying withdrawal.  It is a violation of the deal.  America is violating an agreement it negotiated.  Willingly and blatantly.  We have no grounds to withdraw.
 


  • Yuli Ban likes this





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Israel, Iran, nuclear dear, USA, Trump, war, Syria, Russia, Persian Gulf, Middle East

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users