Military Build Up in the Gulf

[Scottyboi]

I don't like Israel. They remind me of that bully in school, who picks on the scrawny kid because he can't defend himself.

It should be stressed here that it's not Israel as a whole in this one. Whilst, yes, Israel sees Iran as a competitor, a threat, an enemy, there is a small extreme section of the Israeli government that is pushing for military action. The Israelis know, that, without a ground invasion, Iran cannot be stopped indefinitely from getting a nuclear weapon IF that is what they want. Right now, the more rational elements in Israel are trying to stop Iran from taking that decision. A former Mossad chief has even said Israel can live with a nuclear Iran because it is a rational actor and Iran knows Israel will always be able to strike back.

US PNAC hawks, the military-industrial complex, extreme Israeli Zionists, the UAE and Saudi are the ones that want this. Specifically, most of them want ground forces and that will be an absolute bloodbath. If anyone thinks Iraq is bad enough, wait until you see ground forces go into Iran. The death toll will be catastrophic, for all concerned, including the invaders.

Also read somewhere Israel would struggle with an Air battle due to refueling issues and the sheer size of Iran. The Saudi's have to be one of the worst shit stirrers going.

 

[Timmmmahhhh]

Skashion is a proper knobhead

Completely agree.

 

[Skashion]

Also read somewhere Israel would struggle with an Air battle due to refueling issues and the sheer size of Iran. The Saudi's have to be one of the worst shit stirrers going.

I do know parts of Iran are beyond the range of Israeli aircraft from Israel. The Israeli airforce is extremely powerful though, and in the event of a ground invasion (which will need US forces), would be backed up by US carriers which will be able to strike anywhere in Iran. It would be an extremely tough war. Iran is a big country to occupy and parts of its terrain are as bad as Afghanistan's. Iran is a populous country which is relatively unified. It is ethnically and religiously homogeneous. There are only really political divides. If invaded I'd expect the resistance to be unified and dogged. The causalities inflicted would be Iraq tenfold at least I'd say.

It's a tricky one to work out this. A bombing campaign would only delay an Iranian nuclear weapon and would ensure it does eventually happen. A ground campaign and occupation would be another Vietnam and end up in eventual, but bloody victory, for Iran I think. Neither is appealing for most parties. This war march is being driven for the interests of a very small but powerful group of people and if the majority say no, the whole issue could resolve itself without much fuss at all.

 

[Evo49]

In reply to the OP, I'd say any increase of American military power in that part of the world would be done with the aim of maintaining the peace.

Iran has repeatedly threatened to disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz in reply to United Nations sanctions imposed in response to its nuclear program. Increased American presence would deter this action and the risk of escalation it would entail.

America has also persuaded Israel against any military action against Iran, for now at least, whilst sanctions are given time to work. Again, increased American forces in the area may give Israel the confidence to "wait it out", and not take action unilaterally against a nation developing nuclear weapons who has previously stated it wished to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

So, in my opinion, America using its power to contain a volatile situation - we should probably be grateful.

This is total bullshit from start to finish.

Firstly, yes, in the event of military threats, Iran has said it will respond. Iran is entitled to build civilian nuclear power and there is no evidence it is not doing. Even US and Israeli intelligence have said Tehran has not made a decision to build one: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/mossad-cia-agree-iran-has-yet-to-decide-to-build-nuclear-weapon-1.419300" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... n-1.419300</a>

Again, bullshit. There's no evidence that it is building nuclear weapons and that statement was never made. The Israelis know that better than anyone. Mossad agrees that Iran is a rational actor. There will never be any rationality in striking against a country with second-strike capability. Israel will always be able to wipe out Iran.

Only the ignorant should. The informed should realise this is being driven by the military-industrial complex and PNAC types in Washington and the most extreme Israelis (the type who believe in Greater Israel).

Obviously we disagree.

Regardless of your statement as to evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran - it would seem the entire western world is convinced of Iran's intent to do so, thus sanctions imposed by the UN, USA, EU. Obviously the aim being to prevent this happening. The negotiations continue, the sanctions imposed - or possible removal of the sanctions a key issue.

Therefore American involvement to help prevent any Iranian retaliation to sanctions in the Straits of Hormuz seems entirely reasonable. Unlikely that the Iranians would risk the humiliation of a swift targeted response, the country is unstable already.

Israel would never allow Iran to achieve a nuclear capability - I would prefer strict sanctions policed by a show of American power than the reaction to a targeted Israeli military strike.

 

[Challenger1978]

Also read somewhere Israel would struggle with an Air battle due to refueling issues and the sheer size of Iran. The Saudi's have to be one of the worst shit stirrers going.

I do know parts of Iran are beyond the range of Israeli aircraft from Israel. The Israeli airforce is extremely powerful though, and in the event of a ground invasion (which will need US forces), would be backed up by US carriers which will be able to strike anywhere in Iran. It would be an extremely tough war. Iran is a big country to occupy and parts of its terrain are as bad as Afghanistan's. Iran is a populous country which is relatively unified. It is ethnically and religiously homogeneous. There are only really political divides. If invaded I'd expect the resistance to be unified and dogged. The causalities inflicted would be Iraq tenfold at least I'd say.

It's a tricky one to work out this. A bombing campaign would only delay an Iranian nuclear weapon and would ensure it does eventually happen. A ground campaign and occupation would be another Vietnam and end up in eventual, but bloody victory, for Iran I think. Neither is appealing for most parties. This war march is being driven for the interests of a very small but powerful group of people and if the majority say no, the whole issue could resolve itself without much fuss at all.

Iran could never be occupied, its military and industrial complex though could be levelled within a couple of weeks easily IMO.

 

[Evo49]

In reply to the OP, I'd say any increase of American military power in that part of the world would be done with the aim of maintaining the peace.

Iran has repeatedly threatened to disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz in reply to United Nations sanctions imposed in response to its nuclear program. Increased American presence would deter this action and the risk of escalation it would entail.

America has also persuaded Israel against any military action against Iran, for now at least, whilst sanctions are given time to work. Again, increased American forces in the area may give Israel the confidence to "wait it out", and not take action unilaterally against a nation developing nuclear weapons who has previously stated it wished to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

So, in my opinion, America using its power to contain a volatile situation - we should probably be grateful.

Just like Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction?

Good point actually. The intelligence community certainly did themselves no favours with the alleged WMD program in Iraq, so presume you say why should we believe their allegations about a nuclear program in Iran ?

Honest answer is I can only base my belief that this is their intention on what seems to be the consensus of the majority of the western world.

 

[Skashion]

Obviously we disagree.

Regardless of your statement as to evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran - it would seem the entire western world is convinced of Iran's intent to do so, thus sanctions imposed by the UN, USA, EU. Obviously the aim being to prevent this happening. The negotiations continue, the sanctions imposed - or possible removal of the sanctions a key issue.

Therefore American involvement to help prevent any Iranian retaliation to sanctions in the Straits of Hormuz seems entirely reasonable. Unlikely that the Iranians would risk the humiliation of a swift targeted response, the country is unstable already.

Israel would never allow Iran to achieve a nuclear capability - I would prefer strict sanctions policed by a show of American power than the reaction to a targeted Israeli military strike.

Yes, obviously.

Right. So the west has the right to impose sanctions without evidence of wrongdoing... Fucking hell, thoughtcrime, fantastic. You do know the Iranians can just withdraw from the NPT and then it doesn't even have to comply legally? Guess who's not a NPT signatory and doesn't allow any inspections? What action is taken against Israel? None. That this doesn't set alarm bells in your head says everything about your support for western imperialism. You believe the west has more rights than Iran.

Again, you are standing up for a bully's right to bully, and bully in Israel's favour, when Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons whose facilities are not observed by the IAEA.

Israel has no choice in the matter. Israel can only delay a nuclear weapon by bombing Iran. If Iran decides to go ahead, it can build deep under the ground in parts of Iran inaccessible to both Israeli aircraft and bunker busters. If they did strike, Iran will certainly build. Again, they know this, or certainly they have calculated this. Permanent occupation is the only way to ensure against it and Israel is nowhere near strong enough to achieve that. The United States probably isn't.

 

[scenecreamer]

In reply to the OP, I'd say any increase of American military power in that part of the world would be done with the aim of maintaining the peace.

Iran has repeatedly threatened to disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz in reply to United Nations sanctions imposed in response to its nuclear program. Increased American presence would deter this action and the risk of escalation it would entail.

America has also persuaded Israel against any military action against Iran, for now at least, whilst sanctions are given time to work. Again, increased American forces in the area may give Israel the confidence to "wait it out", and not take action unilaterally against a nation developing nuclear weapons who has previously stated it wished to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

So, in my opinion, America using its power to contain a volatile situation - we should probably be grateful.

shhhhhhhhhhhhhh...don talk sense. kneejerk reactions only please!

this thread is useless without US-bashing.

 

[Skashion]

shhhhhhhhhhhhhh...don talk sense. kneejerk reactions only please!

this thread is useless without US-bashing.

Never mind dear. One day you'll grow up and you'll realise the country of which you are a citizen is capable of some seriously despicable shit.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Surely the US can't afford another war?

It's ok, Israel will happily fund them.

So Israel is bankrolling the US?
Erm,ok...