Iranian boats attempted to seize British tanker

Iranians cheered when the Shah was deposed and the (literal) animal lover, Ayatollah Khomeini, returned from France. The Shah was modernizing Iran, bring it into a more recent century, but the religious fanatics -and the people it seems- didn't like that. Now you see what Allah has wrought.

Perhaps Muslims should consider giving up on Islam. It's obviously not getting them anywhere.

 

Lowest estimates 75% highest around 90%, we take out the sites, sink the navy and the air force if it dares shows itself. The war with Saddam lasted 3 weeks.

 

They cheered for the fact that their country was no longer a colony of the US, who was draining their natural resources.

 

Iran has crap that goes much faster,... and also has technology to counter the iron dome. Israel can be destroyed in days. If you take out Jerusalem, Haifa and Tel Aviv.... kind of it. All other places are just towns.

 

After that it was protecting Iraqi Muslims from the Islamists.

 

I hope for the sale of the Iranian people that their leaders don't believe any of that.

 

Saddam was diplomatically isolated, and we did have to fight land battles, something that would be much harder in Iran.

It's just a completely different situation.

 

I occasionally still read this forum since it gives a window into the various (and often rather peculiar and occasionally frighteningly and grotesquely uninformed) outlook prevalent among Americans as it relates to Iran. But it isn't all that useful to engage in protracted debates since many engaging in debate are more interested in advancing a 'cause' than advancing the truth. The process makes debates here often a waste of time since you find neither greater enlightenment nor can anyone (except the deluded) imagine that any real "cause" is advanced by what is said and believed by posters on a forum such as this.

All that said, I will nonetheless say a couple of things about the prospects of war with Iran in my next couple of messages. The first will deal with the lessons (for both sides of the equation) to learn and not learn from America's wars with Iraq. And about the different scenarios for how a war with Iran would look like. The other with the larger issue of America's policies towards Iran in particular and in the region and beyond more generally. Both in the sense of explaining the objective of those policies (by those pushing them) and also for trying to help out those who have an interest in seeing those objectives defeated regardless of their attitude towards Iran itself.

 

A completely different situation in many senses yes. There are lessons, nonetheless, that will be useful even if they aren't the lessons many here seem to have taken from those wars.

The most important thing in war is tactics and strategy. In the first Iraq war, Saddam chose to withdraw his forces from Kuwait (in a deal he negotiated with Russia!) on the eve of America's ground campaign. As a result, a couple of misguided tank battles in open desert not withstanding, the first Iraq war ended with the US going on a turkey shoot killing off Iraq's forces as they were trying to leave Kuwait through the so-called 'highway of death'. Obviously, how that battle turned out had no bearing on understanding how it might have turned out if Iraq's forces had instead been fighting the US for the ground in Kuwait and, in particular, if they had chosen to engage in urban warfare in places such as Kuwait city. The second Iraq war, on the other hand, was mostly a propaganda show from start to finish. The fact is that by that time Saddam had limited control over his country and the forces that he did still have figuratively under his command to protect Baghdad were in fact led by officers who had already been contacted and compromised by the CIA through figures such as Iraq's subsequent prime minister, Alawi, had been busy calling many of these generals and officers to promise them safe heavens and a good life if they simply left their posts and commands to basically allow the Americans to enter without a real fight.

The Iraq wars hold lessons regarding a war with Iran, but those lessons aren't so much about the effectiveness of the US military by itself. The main lesson is that the most simple way to win a war, particularly a war of choice where you aren't willing to pay a high price, is to set up the field where you don't really need to fight in the first place! In a nutshell, that is what America wants to do with Iran as well. Otherwise, some clueless comments here about how and what a war with Iran would really look like notwithstanding, the fact is that anyone who sits where Trump is sitting now will be told sooner or later by America's own generals that in a war with Iran, the key issue is whether Iran will fight back and engage in war until it is really defeated on the battlefield? If the answer is yes, if Iran does choose to stand its ground and fight and if its officers and military and political leadership aren't compromised or duped, war with Iran is never a real option for a side like the US engaging in a 'war of choice'. The costs of such a war would be simply be prohibitive and to end it on favorable terms for the US will most likely require either the US branding its nuclear card or re-instituting the draft and going for WWII style invasion of Iran all the way to Tehran. Otherwise, Iran will have the means to be hurting and damaging the US, its military, its interests, its bases, all over the region and will be able to sustain that ability for a long time.

 

That's precisely my point with my reference to Saddam's diplomatic isolation. The Levant happens to be the most militarized slice of the world right now, and Iran happens to have allies and proxies who make up most of that militarization. An American-Iranian war, which would be disastrous even if just limited to Iran, would not stay limited to Iran. The war would spread to the Levant, Iraq, Central Asia and the Arabian peninsula. The Iraq war was kept relatively tidy because nobody was willing to join Saddam's struggle except for Sunni Jihadists, a minor, oppressed and hunted faction in the region.

 

There would be no rational reason for any of these areas to get involved in any war involving Iran. The leaders of these regions know it would be suicidal to get involved and aren't really supportive of Iran (Persia) at the best of times.

 

Come ON! You don't believe that. Tito was a communist, we just needed him as a bulwark against the Sovs just as we need KSA against Iran and the extremist elements in his own kingdom.

We could have eased him out with no real fuss? COME ON! What do you think the CIA spent a decade trying and failing to do?

 

Yeah, that's Hollywood, not real life.

 

REALLY? I always thought it stemmed from Han-guk, which means Korean person?

 

And the Houthis can stop the war any time they like, if the Iranians let them.

 

"The leaders of these regions."

No, groups like Hezbollah, Assad, and Iraqi Shia see the geopolitical destruction of Iran as what it would be: a disaster for them.

It will not go well.

And let's take the analysis a step further. When it becomes clear that their leadership have been party to disastrous American imperialism, Sunni countries are going to face political upheaval. The unseating of MBS and al-Sisi are very plausible scenarios. I think they're inevitable anyways, but I think this disaster would hasten the process.

 

Oh come on, you don't really believe that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism_(U.S._list)#Syria

Where on your list are Syria's attacks on Israel or occupation of Lebanon?

Equally the US came to Korea in 53 to repel the invading North Koreans? And Came to Kuwait in 91 to kick out Saddam? And saved Bosnia from the Serbs? When did the US attack Tibet exactly?

 

Bet they regret that now! Iran was never a US 'colony', it was a friendly dictatorship which was considered better than the alternative. When we look at Iran today it is the best ever argument for keeping friendly dictators on power.

 

American imperialism?

War never goes well because, of course, innocent people die. But unless the leaders are religious fanatics ready to meet with Allah and the virgins, they'll keep their wits about them. Trump will go in to win and they know that.

 

I realize that the Brits seizing the Iranian tanker was an act of war. Iran seizing a British tanker would then be a proportionate response.

It is loopy to suggest that firing anti ship missiles would be a proportionate response.

 

When did this silly notion of a 'proportionate response' begin? The idea is to win against any aggression or that aggression will continue.

 

Obviously.

No, I mean it won't go well even for American geopolitical objectives. It would be a massive mistake.

Like I've said elsewhere, I'm a nuanced thinker. I can look at this from an imperialist's perspective better than any imperialist can. The most probable hegemon of the Middle East is Turkey, not Iran. Iran will be not just a valuable ally, but the most valuable ally in counterbalancing this threat.

Not only do I think we would weaken Iran (obviously) by invading, but we would significantly strengthen Turkey by destabilizing conservative Sunni governments and also by destroying Assad and Hezbollah, which is what I think would happen.

Pure delusion. They're going to act in their geopolitical interests, period. Iran saved Assad and is probably the only reason Hezbollah still exists as a powerful entity. I'm mixed on what the Iraqi government might do, but I sure as hell know what Shia militias in Iraq will do.

 

So no Iranian imperialism then.

Turkey is in an economic recession and the government does not have the support of the people. Erdogan will be fighting to stay in power and the people would be happy to see him gone. Their influence is overrated.

They're going to act in their own self interest and nothing more. Waging war with the US is very unwise and they know it.

 

Well, seems like everyone is making insane illogical leaps today.

You people even trying?

Hmm, what was I saying? Oh, right, I was comparing Turkey to Iran.

Do you want to draw that direct comparison in relation to what you've said here? I'll wait.

People fight Americans all the time, buddy.

 

The nuclear accord known as JCPOA that entered into was a big con job against Iran based on promises that were predictably never going to be fulfilled. It was a more complicated and earlier version of the Russians persuading Saddam to end his occupation of Kuwait on the eve of the US ground invasion, setting up his forces to be massacred on the so-called highway of death. The same way the deal between Russia and Saddam had little bearing on what the Americans would do, the deal between Iran and the other signatories of the JCPOA had little bearing on what the neocons, the Israelis and other proponents of the policy of seeking to create an "implosion" in Iran were interested in. That deal basically put what little that remained of Iran's nuclear infrastructure in a "highway of death" of its own kind. Whereas as before the JCPOA, Israel nor even the US had any reliable means to making any serious dent into Iran's nuclear capabilities, now it is a rather simple affair for Israel to attack the Natanz facility even by itself. The chances that Israel might in fact do such a thing increased substantially by virtue of the deal, since its now doable for them. In this regard, the least sensible way for Iran to react to Trump pulling out of the JCPOA is for it to do what it has been doing, namely slightly increasing its enrichment activities in a compromised facility that can be taken out by the Israelis and Americans at will. Instead, to the extent it still capable of doing, Iran needs to find a way to move its nuclear activities out of sight and out of range of US or Israeli attack. That is one of several things Iran must do in order to avoid being put into a situation where its only option is either to commit suicide simply to exact a huge price on those perpetuating the aggression against it, or find itself eventually going on the road of the kind of 'implosion' the neocons and Israeli's have in their misguided obsession set for Iran.

Now, why are the neocons and the Israelis going on this road in the first place? The simple answer is that the entire strategy is meant to fulfill the interests of two powerful interest groups in the US, namely those whose personal careers and economic interests are tied in with the war making business. Namely the military industrial complex, who after the fall of the Soviet Union and talk of military down-sizing were eager to find a mission and strategy that would justify so much of America's resources being spend on the military. And the other is the pro Israeli lobby and, in particular, the ultra Zionist wing that has visions of grandeur and wants its 'Greater Israel' to become a reality. If they manage to take out Iran (a big if), then they will indeed set their sights on Turkey. The challenges Turkey presents will be different, but its greater economic integration into the structures of the so-called global economy means there are also easier ways to unravel Turkey economically. While Iran and Turkey have been rivals for centuries and more, going back to even before there was a Turkey or even before there was an Ottoman empire, with Iran and the rulers of Anatolia (be it the Romans, the Byzantines, or the Ottomans) often find themselves at war, it is past time for these two countries which share a lot to find ways to work together much more effectively than they have so far. Otherwise, while the methods will differ, the ultimate prescription for both by the neocons and Israelis is the same.