Iran / Israel

SimonAH

Worrisome times folks, worrisome times....

notsoblue

I wonder what would happen if we pulled a Denmark on this and our government just kept out of it.

suzyb

What is worrisome.

FoldingJoe

Indeed - where do they go from here?

Hopefully Iran will continue to deny the targets alleged by the Thai officials and things will wash over.

Koncordski

I believe the weather clears enough for precision bombing around May in that part of the world. Goodbye Iranian nuclear facilities. I'd put £100 on it.

rick_chasey

Britain's already building up forces in case they decide to intervene in Iran.

jamesco

Considering the program of assassination that Israel is conducting against Iranian scientists, it would be a touch hypocritical to complain about retaliation. But if Iran is retaliating, that'd delight Netanyahu, as he could point to it as justification for escalation.

Not sure about whether Iran's nuclear facilities will be attacked. Apparently Israel hasn't got the capability and would need to rope the US in; Obama clearly and sensibly doesn't want to go there - better to live with the possiblity of a nuclear-armed Iran than the certainty of a war.

Iran feeling threatened is not paranoia:

rjsterry

notsoblue wrote:

I wonder what would happen if we pulled a Denmark on this and our government just kept out of it.

I think since they torched our embassy, there's little chance of us keeping out of it.

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

I wonder what would happen if we pulled a Denmark on this and our government just kept out of it.

I have some sources in the MOD and I'm told both the Tories and the Lib Dems in the MOD are pretty gung ho..

Some Lib Dems are desperate to change their mind. They recon Lib Dems supporting an Iraq style war will be the death of the party.

bails87

rjsterry wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I wonder what would happen if we pulled a Denmark on this and our government just kept out of it.

I think since they torched our embassy, there's little chance of us keeping out of it.

I'd rather a burnt down embassy than thousands more lives lost in another middle east war. Iraq and Afghanistan are hardly beacons of stability.

It was quite funny seeing how some Americans seemed to react almost with indignation when Iran refused to return the drone that was in their airspace, as if the US would happily return an Iranian aircraft in the same circumstances. Same goes for the assassinations of Iranian scientists, it goes unnoticed here, but when Iran retaliates it's (quite rightly) big news.

jedster

The chance of an Iraq style war is non-existant. Zero appetite for boots on the ground. In any case, it's a bigger more populous, country than Iraq and the Mullah's ahve more support than Saddam had. It would make Iraq look like a pic-nic. Not going to happen.

There is a chance of us supporting The US in bombing big chunks of Iran flat. I wouldn't say it was probable though - sounds like you'd need to drop nukes to do damage to some of Iran's underground facilities so conventional bombing might only delay them a bit.

Seems to me that Mossad has the right approach...

Jez mon

I think a war with Iran would be more palatable that with Iraq though.

Of course, Afghanistan and Iraq are hardly shining beacons of western intervention. So pre any war what would be needed is:

Wide-scale support from the rest of the region. AFAIK, this might be possible, there isn't much love lost between Iranians and Arabs...

A proper exit plan. This didn't exist in Iraq, and was a massive problem.

I would hardly say the assassination of the Iranian scientists goes unnoticed, I personally noticed more coverage of the latest assassination within Iran than I have of this latest retaliation by Iran...

jamesco

Jez mon wrote:

I think a war with Iran would be more palatable that with Iraq though.

Of course, Afghanistan and Iraq are hardly shining beacons of western intervention. So pre any war what would be needed is:

Wide-scale support from the rest of the region. AFAIK, this might be possible, there isn't much love lost between Iranians and Arabs...

A proper exit plan. This didn't exist in Iraq, and was a massive problem.

I would hardly say the assassination of the Iranian scientists goes unnoticed, I personally noticed more coverage of the latest assassination within Iran than I have of this latest retaliation by Iran...

Before any war the proponents would need: a goal, a justification and ability to attain the goal. Okay, the goal - preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons - is clear, but what's the justification? Israel has 200 nuclear weapons. France, the UK, the US, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, China - they all have them, too. Why is Iran a special-case?

Let's say the war starts - how can the attackers keep their boots on the throat of Iran long enough to ensure they never get the weapons? Will there be an unending occupation? The US simply can't afford the crippling cost of another war; air-attacks won't achieve much, thanks to the facilities being built within mountains, but they will inflame Iranian public opinion. Look at the US - the day before 9/11, George Bush had middling support; the day after, he had 90% approval. The Iranian theocracy is unpopular and the Iranian people may get rid of it by themselves, but for westeners to attack would ruin any possibility of that.

cjcp

A big concern.

Sanctions haven't worked out so well in recent times in that part of the world.

Oil sanctions against Iran; Iran economy suffers and retaliates by sinking a couple of tankers and engaging in brinkmanship; price of oil rockets; where does the West go from there?

rick_chasey

jamesco wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

I think a war with Iran would be more palatable that with Iraq though.

Of course, Afghanistan and Iraq are hardly shining beacons of western intervention. So pre any war what would be needed is:

Wide-scale support from the rest of the region. AFAIK, this might be possible, there isn't much love lost between Iranians and Arabs...

A proper exit plan. This didn't exist in Iraq, and was a massive problem.

I would hardly say the assassination of the Iranian scientists goes unnoticed, I personally noticed more coverage of the latest assassination within Iran than I have of this latest retaliation by Iran...

Before any war the proponents would need: a goal, a justification and ability to attain the goal. Okay, the goal - preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons - is clear, but what's the justification? Israel has 200 nuclear weapons. France, the UK, the US, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, China - they all have them, too. Why is Iran a special-case?

Let's say the war starts - how can the attackers keep their boots on the throat of Iran long enough to ensure they never get the weapons? Will there be an unending occupation? The US simply can't afford the crippling cost of another war; air-attacks won't achieve much, thanks to the facilities being built within mountains, but they will inflame Iranian public opinion. Look at the US - the day before 9/11, George Bush had middling support; the day after, he had 90% approval. The Iranian theocracy is unpopular and the Iranian people may get rid of it by themselves, but for westeners to attack would ruin any possibility of that.

There's the infamous quote that was wrongly attributed to the leader of Iran who said they wanted to 'wipe Israel off the map.'

That has a duel meaning, since any Arab map I've seen (from Oman) puts the map legend over Israel so that you can't see it...

notsoblue

Israel really isn't worth us going to war with Iran over...

And I've played Battlefield 3. War isn't pretty, folks.

bails87

Rick, what was the actual quote? I know it wasn't quite how it is so often presented.

rick_chasey

bails87 wrote:

Rick, what was the actual quote? I know it wasn't quite how it is so often presented.

It's contested, but it's about the translation of the quote.

The wiki summery is better than my limited knowledge on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ah ... ontroversy

EKE_38BPM

I've got a nice simple answer to the problem that will keep everybody happy.

Bring back the Shah.

Stevo_666

Unfortunately I think some sort of conflict will happen - mainly because I reckon the Israelis perceive the threat from a nuclear armed Iran to be so great that they will take matters into their own hands at some point. Even if the US is very reluctant to start another war, if Israel and Iran kick off then the US may well get drawn in.

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

jamesco wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

I think a war with Iran would be more palatable that with Iraq though.

Of course, Afghanistan and Iraq are hardly shining beacons of western intervention. So pre any war what would be needed is:

Wide-scale support from the rest of the region. AFAIK, this might be possible, there isn't much love lost between Iranians and Arabs...

A proper exit plan. This didn't exist in Iraq, and was a massive problem.

I would hardly say the assassination of the Iranian scientists goes unnoticed, I personally noticed more coverage of the latest assassination within Iran than I have of this latest retaliation by Iran...

Before any war the proponents would need: a goal, a justification and ability to attain the goal. Okay, the goal - preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons - is clear, but what's the justification? Israel has 200 nuclear weapons. France, the UK, the US, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, China - they all have them, too. Why is Iran a special-case?

Let's say the war starts - how can the attackers keep their boots on the throat of Iran long enough to ensure they never get the weapons? Will there be an unending occupation? The US simply can't afford the crippling cost of another war; air-attacks won't achieve much, thanks to the facilities being built within mountains, but they will inflame Iranian public opinion. Look at the US - the day before 9/11, George Bush had middling support; the day after, he had 90% approval. The Iranian theocracy is unpopular and the Iranian people may get rid of it by themselves, but for westeners to attack would ruin any possibility of that.

There's the infamous quote that was wrongly attributed to the leader of Iran who said they wanted to 'wipe Israel off the map.'

That has a duel meaning, since any Arab map I've seen (from Oman) puts the map legend over Israel so that you can't see it...

Sorry, at the start of my post, I meant to say (a more vague word) action, rather than all out war. :oops: actions such as providing support to pro democracy groups within Iran (if this is even possible)....

I think there is some justification, ultimately, Iran wouldn't be just another country with nuclear capabilities. They would be a very scary country with nuclear capabilities(!) Ahmadinejad isn't the only Middle Eastern leader to harbour shall we say, hostile views towards Israel, but he would be the only one to have any kind of nuclear capability. Ahmadinejad also seems the leader who is most likely to use any capability.

How does an Israeli led war play out though, I wonder whom the Saudi's despise more, the Iranians or the Israelis?

Stevo_666

The other thing that worries me is the possibility of Iran supplying nuclear materials to their terrorist contacts (which now appear to include al-Qaeda) so that they can make a 'dirty bomb'. They already have such materials even if they haven't got to making a proper A bomb - wonder how much of a risk this is if things keep on heating up?

bails87

Stevo 666 wrote:

The other thing that worries me is the possibility of Iran supplying nuclear materials to their terrorist contacts (which now appear to include al-Qaeda) so that they can make a 'dirty bomb'.

Werent' we told the same thing about Iraq?

jamesco

Stevo 666 wrote:

The other thing that worries me is the possibility of Iran supplying nuclear materials to their terrorist contacts (which now appear to include al-Qaeda) so that they can make a 'dirty bomb'. They already have such materials even if they haven't got to making a proper A bomb - wonder how much of a risk this is if things keep on heating up?

The only way Iran would ally with al Qaeda would be if they got forced into it. al Qaeda (Sunni) despises Shia Iran. Of course, given the way Iran was labeled as part of the "axis of evil" at the exact moment it was able and willing to help the US, it wouldn't be surprising for some numbskull like Romney/Santorum/Netanyahu to force them into an alliance.

cjcp

When someone mentioned a very scary country with nuclear bombs earlier, were they talking about a Republican US or a country in the ME?

bails87

cjcp wrote:

When someone mentioned a very scary country with nuclear bombs earlier, were they talking about a Republican US or a country in the ME?

EKE_38BPM

jamesco wrote:

...it wouldn't be surprising for some numbskull like Romney/Santorum/Netanyahu to force them into an alliance.

Santorum almost makes me laugh. Google his name. The first result is NSFW.

I think a Santorum/Palin ticket would be a surefire way for Obama to get a second term.
Be very afraid of the Iranian military. How would the Yank navy combat this?

Oh yeah, with this!

noodles71

One shouldn't believe everything they read in the newspapers. Something tells me though that some sort of escalated argy bargy will be happening soon. We have Israel that wants to have a go at Iran because they are the only real strategic threat in the region. The money and influence behind the US government see a massive untapped oil reserve. Europe sees a way of keeping the soveriegn debt crisis off our TV screens. With some in political classes that really do see war as a way of lifting economic growth it all adds up to be pretty scary.

I would seriously recommend people see these places with their own eyes. I am struggling to think of a more racist country I have ever visited than Israel. I personally found the Palestinians very friendly and the only others I could rate as being friendlier were the Syrians. It is such a shame both places are in such a mess right now as the average families I encountered there I would gladly have as neighbours any day of the week. If you read the Daily Mail however you would believe they would be startig a bomb factory next to you.

lost_in_thought

cjcp wrote:

When someone mentioned a very scary country with nuclear bombs earlier, were they talking about a Republican US or a country in the ME?

Eggs-actly.

The USA having missiles that can probably blow anyone who annoys them up in under 2 minutes, or, I dunno, bounce off the moon and kill us all; at the same time as a republican wind-up to election is going on is far more scary to me than Iran having the capability to theoretically make some nukes at some point.

Hypocrisy much? Who said we have to be the world's maiden aunt?

I might just move to Sweden. Or switzerland. Or any country beginning with Sw-. Oh, no, hang on, does Swaziland still exist?

EDIT: @Noodles -- I spent 4 months in Israel, one of the best summers of my life. They're all just people, and the ones I hung out with were almost undividedly nice, if a tad sexist!

se-po

What about Russia and China?
Would they just sit and watch if US/Israel mess-up with Iran?
Iran exports a lot of oil in China.

cjcp

se-po wrote:

What about Russia and China?
Would they just sit and watch if US/Israel mess-up with Iran?
Iran exports a lot of oil in China.

China and Russia have no interest in being global policemen, particularly the former who are more concerned with securing investment in mineral and raw material resources e.g. western Africa. War costs too much, and perhaps they figure that the US will undermine themselves by stretching themselves too thinly across the globe. That plays into the hands of Russia and China. They don't need to go to war; they just need to be bloody awkward on a diplomatic level and frustrate the US.

That's just a bunch of thoughts, mind. I could be waaaaaaay wrong!