Iranian boats attempted to seize British tanker

War with Iran has not been fought yet, simply because it would indeed be as disastrous as you mention and worse. But if the neocons and Israelis do manage to neutralize all of Iran's cards, at some point, the prospects of such a war will become a greater reality. The recipe against Iran doesn't involve a ground invasion, but rather weakening Iran to the point when none will be required, with Iran too cowed to retaliate against any aggression against it and with the US/Israel then pushing the other buttons necessarily to create the "implosion" they are looking for. The military strikes in this equation would be simply be in the nature of "sanctions enhancers".

Those who do not like to see this neocon/Israeli strategy to succeed, need to be a little more creative and proactive. For Americans, it all starts with genuinely reclaiming their country from those who are planning its future without their genuine consent. The manufactured consent that the neocons and Israelis create to further agendas that bear little relationship to any notion of genuine American interests only works because the opposition has simply disarmed itself by its inability to take on one of the major sources of bipartisan corruption in American politics, namely the pro Israel lobby.

 

Well, I don't need to tell you the result of such a strategy (and I do think you're right), but for the benefit of anyone else reading: We would find it necessary to engage in inland struggles not just in Iran but throughout the Islamic world. A war like this cannot stay "limited." It's arrogant and foolish to think otherwise.

 

I think the CIA spent a decade putting him in power and then propping him up. The only reason he invaded Kuwait was because they told him he could take the small corner that was side drilling into his oil fields. He took the whole country almost by mistake and then couldn't back down without losing street cred, Either we were going to hang him or his people would have.

Tito kept the various factions of the "South Slavs" from going at each other. Just like the Ottomans had before him the Byzantines before them and we're doing now. The Balkans aren't called a "shatter zone" for nothing and Yugoslavia was the most Balkan of them all. Those people have been at war with each other since before the Romans conquered them and regard a few hundred years of enforced peace as a light interregnum to rearm

Iraq is pretty much the same and Saddam was very much an Arab Tito, a strong man who could sit on stiff-necked people. That's the problem working with dictators; they get an Army with some weaponry and pretty soon they think THEY'RE running the show

 

He invaded the country by MISTAKE? Really? Are you listening to yourself? And you haven't answered my question, how could we have 'eased him out'?
The US ambassador told Saddam that America had no position on the Iraq/Kuwait border dispute, to everyone else that means they're an honest broker between 2 allies, 2 Saddam that means they'll do nothing if I invade.

 

He meant to invade one small oilfield but his "elite" troops kept pursuing the Kuwaitis who were in headlong flight. Saddam saw what he perceived as a golden opportunity and took it. We could have eased him out through a carrot and stick, a chance to take a billion dollars and asylum or the same noose he eventually got anyway.

 

Who are we to tell them what to do? India has nukes, russia has nukes, 20 other countries have nukes. What country has Iran invaded in the last 100 years. Why can't Iran have nukes and Saudi can? Now, of course I don't want any other countries to have nukes. But the reason countries want them is that other countries that they are in conflict with have them. We are not going to get rid of our nukes by any means so the only thing left is to stop the conflict between our two nations and don't let the Saudis who are the Iranian's enemy to have them. all we have to do is call off our dogs in the area in a quid pro quo for them ceasing aid to Hezbollah and Hamas. We can not back SA and Isreal in what ever they want to do in the ME and expect the region to have somewhat of a peace.

 

Everybody can look up if them Iranians got rockets who got technology to by pass the iron dome.

 

Just for clarification: Israel's so-called Iron Dome system isn't even designed, nor certainly capable, of intercepting Iran's ballistic missiles. Rather, it is designed to intercept low altitude, short range, rockets and mortars of the kind Hamas and some others sometimes use against them. The Israeli anti-missile system is the Arrow, with the US also delivering a few months ago batteries of the supposedly highly advanced THAAD anti-missile to the Israelis, which also have the old and rather ineffective Patriot anti-missile system as well. Israel's Arrow anti-missile system has not been used in battle so no one knows how effective is will prove to be, but there is general consensus that even if it is successful in intercepting a few missiles, it will not be able to handle the kind of missile barrage Israel can face in a confrontation with Iran. The fact that the US has provided the THAAD system to the Israelis shows they both recognize they still have a ways to go to even be remotely confident they can effectively counter Iranian missiles.

 

The war is in Syria and there is an international sanction and blockade of oil shipments to Assad.

Why do you support the Iranians?

 

Another point I should add about the Iron Dome: militarily. the system is insignificant for a real war. The system is designed to give the Israeli public a sense that they don"t need to panic when they hear sirens signalling a rocket attack from Hamas. But Israel has a total of 9 operational batteries of the Iron Dome, each battery carrying 20 interceptors. In a real war, Israel would be facing adversaries with tens of thousands of rockets. not to mention far more advanced systems.

 

Saddam was bribing UN officials to get out of the sanctions andnother countries were violating the sanctions which would have been lifted and inspections ended. The goal in Iran would simply be destroy their military's capability to strike.

 

And I'm saying that it wouldn't stay confined that way. The more "limited" our attack, the more resources they're left with to pursue their goals. The more of those resources you try to strip away, the more involved you have to get. This would lead to a war between Israel and Hezbollah, Syria, and Shia militias, and would probably lead to something like a civil war in Iraq with Shia militias trying to rally the population.

 

No one has the capability to destroy Iran's ability to strike (short of using nukes or cowing Iran to capitulate and disarm itself).. Anyone who is led to believe otherwise is grossly misinformed and clueless.

 

Dude... one missile impact on oil tanker, and it'll blow up.

 

They aren't behind the genocidal policies. The US is. The US has done this before. Iran hasn't. The poster called Free man said "I don't think that becoming genocidal maniacs ever bettered a nation.".... and them genocidal maniacs are the Americans. Fact.

 

The alternative that the US got rid of was a democracy. So your claim a fascist dictatorship where 10.000's of people disappeared was better than a democracy.... what a load of bull. And Iran was part of that neo-colonial rule of the US. The US got rid of that elected president, for the sake to have their natural resources. You can not rewrite this history, champ.

 

Whatever strike in which we engage will lessen their capability to threaten international shipping lanes and other countries. That lessens the power of the Ayatollahs who already find their base weakening.

 

Sure. It's just a way to increase the cost of oil for the Brits. Now in addition to a tanker they need to add the cost of a warship. Shades of 9/11.

 

Let's get this straight, he only meant to invade a little bit but got carried away? GH gave him every chance to back down but Saddam declared Kuwait the 19th province of Iraq

 

No it won't, this is crude oil, it doesn't just light with a match no more than a car blows up if you shoot the fuel tank.

 

What genocide? Stopping the Iranian proxies conquering and oppressing Yemen?

 

I'm not, better the Shah than a communist dictatorship and better the Shah than the Ayatollah.

 

On some of Iran's anti ship missile capabilities

https://thediplomat.com/2013/05/meet-irans-carrier-killer-the-khalij-fars/
Meet Iran’s “Carrier Killer”: The Khalij Fars

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/sink-carriers-how-iran-could-go-war-against-us-navy-54022
Sink the Carriers: How Iran Could Go to War Against the U.S. Navy

 

Many peaceful countries, like Canada, Norway and scores of others do not have nukes. Iran cannot have nukes because thousands of Iranians, supported by their leaders, have chanted "Death to America, Death to Israel" through the main streets of the city.

They are a backward culture as a result of adhering to a backward religion. When they stop their chants, stop stoning women, stop throwing Gays from rooftops, stop the clothing police, perhaps they can then be taken seriously as a responsible nation, but until that happens they shouldn't even be allowed access to hand grenades.

 

You mean Iran will blow up, right?