Does America and Iran's mutual mistrust mean war is inevitable? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17387029)
QuoteWhat would be the consequences of an Israeli or American military strike on Iran and could the conflict yet be avoided, asks Radio 4 Analysis presenter Edward Stourton.
In late 2004, in an atmosphere of frenzied speculation about war with Iran, Jack Straw - then Britain's Foreign Secretary - told the BBC that military action was "inconceivable."
"If I'd not done so, in my view we would have been involved in a firestorm inside the Labour government."
For the United States and Britain had recently invaded Iraq.
Continue reading the main story
"Start Quote
Jack Straw
It could lead to a major realignment in international relations of a kind that we have not seen up to now"
Jack Straw Former British Foreign Secretary
"It was impossible for any British government, but particularly a Labour government given what had happened in Iraq, to contemplate or have any dalliance with the idea of military action in Iran," he now recalls.
"I very consciously decided to close that issue down."
Today - with near civil war in Syria and the Middle East arguably more unstable than ever - military action is very much back on the agenda because of the belief in Washington and Jerusalem that Iran is closer to getting the bomb.
Now even Jack Straw thinks Western military action is possible - so much so, indeed, that he is issuing dire warnings against it.
"It could lead to a major realignment in international relations of a kind that we have not seen up to now," he says.
"You'd get huge divisions in the international community between the US and maybe the United Kingdom, on the one hand; other European countries somewhere in the middle; Russia and China, Brazil, India on the other." ...
The article goes on the mention that Iranian enrichment and potential weapon construction sites will be so well protected and dispersed by the end of 2012 that an effective pre-emptive strike will be impossible. That puts an interesting time frame on the situation.
I can't imagine the Israelis feel particularly comfortable at the moment what with Egypt heading to the creation of a fundamentalist Islamic state.
Watch this space.
I really hope we don't end up at war with Iran. We've been at constant war for over a decade now. That puts an unbelievable strain on personnel (as you can see with increased suicides, homicides, mental illness, divorces, etc.) and equipment. These tanks, trucks, aircraft, forklifts, and others were designed to withstand so many hours of operation. Constant operation brings this equipment closer to it's expected service life much more quickly.
For pity's sake!
Give Iran the bomb, ask for pie in return. Eat pie together while discussing ways of making oil cheaper. The bearded guy comes out pleased and well-armed and the rest of us don't have to spend more than we earn on petrol. >:(
I think it's probable. Iran doesn't seem to want war, but the U.S. seems to.
I also see no reason to impede on their progress in constructing a nuclear weapon. Our most basic drive is self-preservation which is likely the reason they want to have a bomb in the first place. Self-preservation would also likely prevent them from ever using it.
There has been increased propaganda regarding Iran coming from both the pro and anti-war sides, which makes me think a lot of people are seeing similar signs.
Another reason I think it's likely, is because the media would greatly benefit. The Iraq invasion got large amounts of viewers and a full-scale invasion of Iran would arguably be even more impressive and sadistically entertaining.
Hopefully I'm wrong, because if China came to Iran's defense... Perhaps I should start learning some Mandarin just case.
The Intrade markets make my mind feel a bit more at ease, seeing as the probability is still under 50%. It's a surprisingly accurate predictions market. There is currently a 37% chance of war this year.
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=750356
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 19, 2012, 05:29:55 PM
I also see no reason to impede on their progress in constructing a nuclear weapon. Our most basic drive is self-preservation which is likely the reason they want to have a bomb in the first place. Self-preservation would also likely prevent them from ever using it.
I agree with this. I honestly don't see why the US gets to tell other nations that they can't develop nuclear weapons when we have about a gazillion of them. Although frankly I would love for all of us to take the NZ approach and go completely non-nuclear. But if we (and selected other countries) are going to keep them around, I don't see where we get off telling other countries they can't.
The sooner I get out of this country, the better. It is so sad that the U.S cant ever have a peaceful discussion with anoth er country. Their pride has doomed their economy and people. The military are just pawns and rooks anyway for the higher ups. :(
Quote from: Ali on March 19, 2012, 06:29:01 PM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 19, 2012, 05:29:55 PM
I also see no reason to impede on their progress in constructing a nuclear weapon. Our most basic drive is self-preservation which is likely the reason they want to have a bomb in the first place. Self-preservation would also likely prevent them from ever using it.
I agree with this. I honestly don't see why the US gets to tell other nations that they can't develop nuclear weapons when we have about a gazillion of them. Although frankly I would love for all of us to take the NZ approach and go completely non-nuclear. But if we (and selected other countries) are going to keep them around, I don't see where we get off telling other countries they can't.
Let's also not forget that there is only one country that's ever actually used them against a population... and we did it twice.
Of course war with Iran is inevitable.
On the other hand, have you seen these gas prices? Let's distract the population with that, during an election year, and let the war machine ramble on.
So far no two nuclear powers have ever gone to war. I suspect that if Iran tests a nuclear weapon Israel will react thus that puts a lot of pressure on Iran to make Israel their test site. ATM the moment Israeli nuclear weapons are one of the worst kept secrets on Earth. They are in a difficult situation that to use nukes as a deterrent one must first confess to owning them.
I've been following this story just superficially, but it seems that the pressure is coming from Israel to take military action if needed, moreso than from the US or other Western countries. By the look of things, they're going to try diplomatic pressures and sanctions first, though seriously, if you cut the credit line to a sovereign nation, that is a declaration of war. ::)
It's my belief that Iran can't be stopped from ultimately getting nukes if that's what they're going for. They can be delayed, but not stopped. IMO it's also highly unlikely that a regime change will lessen the drive to get nukes, because they're trying to balance out Israel in the region.
I also think that the region might actually become safer and more peaceful if Iran gets their bombs.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 21, 2012, 01:21:22 AM
I also think that the region might actually become safer and more peaceful if Iran gets their bombs.
And I think that if we continue along these lines, HAF might be un-censored in Iran, blasphemous dogs or no ;D
If the US actually goes to war in Iran it is important to point out that Iran is a larger country then both Iraq and Afghanistan combined. If we assume that the US are out of Iraq for good, an invasion in Iran would still triple the territory US troops would have to keep secure in the region. I am not sure a lot of americans realise that.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 21, 2012, 01:21:22 AM
...
I also think that the region might actually become safer and more peaceful if Iran gets their bombs.
So far no two nuclear powers have gone to war. The most prominent example being India in Pakistan who have been notably better neighbours since they have both acquired nuclear arms. That being said, the most worrying aspect of Iran getting nuclear weapons is the anti-Israeli rhetoric that has been coming out of Tehran. I get the feeling that there are a limited number of fanatics in the power structure of Iran that would attack Israel if they could, irrespective of the outcome. But is my understanding simply the result of Western propaganda intended to create an environment that would allow a pre-emptive attack and/or invasion?
http://www.facebook.com/LoveAndPeaceCampaign/info
QuoteLove and Peace Campaign
Description
☻Who we are?
We are a group of independent Israeli-Iranian social activists.
We don't belong to any political party or ideology.
Our only ideology is humanity and our aim is peace.
This page is based on Pushpin Mehina's peace campaign.
☻What's our goal?
We want to take this opportunity to exchange love between people.
We invite and encourage every peaceful heart to join this campaign,
to spread the words of love and unity against any hatred and war.
☻How you can collaborate?
If you have basic software skills, you can download the appropriate slogan form slogan's album and put it on your photo.
You can also send us your photo and we can do it for you.
You can cover your face or ask us to do so.
Love and Peace for all!
Love and unity? Screw it! The Asmo is getting himself one of those Faebooks in order to spread the opposite. >:(
Quote from: Tank on March 21, 2012, 08:25:49 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 21, 2012, 01:21:22 AM
...
I also think that the region might actually become safer and more peaceful if Iran gets their bombs.
So far no two nuclear powers have gone to war. The most prominent example being India in Pakistan who have been notably better neighbours since they have both acquired nuclear arms. That being said, the most worrying aspect of Iran getting nuclear weapons is the anti-Israeli rhetoric that has been coming out of Tehran. I get the feeling that there are a limited number of fanatics in the power structure of Iran that would attack Israel if they could, irrespective of the outcome. But is my understanding simply the result of Western propaganda intended to create an environment that would allow a pre-emptive attack and/or invasion?
The anti-Israel rhetoric is one thing, but unless Iran themselves want to get nuked into oblivion (by other countries other than Israel in case they nuke them first) they're wanting these bomb purely to tip the balance a bit less in Israel's favour, who is the most powerful militarily in that region.
These sanctions intended to cripple Iran will only confirm their belief that they need more persuasive reasons not to be messed with. It's going to backfire.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 21, 2012, 02:53:25 PM
Quote from: Tank on March 21, 2012, 08:25:49 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 21, 2012, 01:21:22 AM
...
I also think that the region might actually become safer and more peaceful if Iran gets their bombs.
So far no two nuclear powers have gone to war. The most prominent example being India in Pakistan who have been notably better neighbours since they have both acquired nuclear arms. That being said, the most worrying aspect of Iran getting nuclear weapons is the anti-Israeli rhetoric that has been coming out of Tehran. I get the feeling that there are a limited number of fanatics in the power structure of Iran that would attack Israel if they could, irrespective of the outcome. But is my understanding simply the result of Western propaganda intended to create an environment that would allow a pre-emptive attack and/or invasion?
The anti-Israel rhetoric is one thing, but unless Iran themselves want to get nuked into oblivion (by other countries other than Israel in case they nuke them first) they're wanting these bomb purely to tip the balance a bit less in Israel's favour, who is the most powerful militarily in that region.
These sanctions intended to cripple Iran will only confirm their belief that they need more persuasive reasons not to be messed with. It's going to backfire.
If Iran nuked Israel a third party could not retaliate, on Israel's behalf, without breaking international law as there are no mutual defence treaties in place between Israel and any other country. It would take a UN mandate to make an attack legal and you can bet that Russia would veto any attack as Iran virtually borders Russia with only Armenia and Azerbaijan in the way.
I suspect the US and / or Israel may well hit Iran later this year (after the US elections), if sanctions and diplomacy don't look like they're going to deter Tehran. I'd expect missile strikes and air raids targeted against Iranian nuclear facilities and not a ground force invasion like in Iraq.
Iran has a highly repressive regime, like Syria and a lot of the Middle East. A large amount of Iranian people may rise up against the regime if they feel they feel it has been weakened and they have half a chance of toppling it, like has happened in numerous Middle eastern countries over the past year.
Let's also not forget as atheists that the Iranian regime would jail and even execute us for our beliefs, as they would any apostate from Islam or homosexual
http://www.iranianatheist.com/
Personally, I don't like the idea of a country that executes homosexuals and atheists having a nuclear weapon. The Iranian regime also clearly dislikes the Israeli regime, and I'd be very worried if I was an Israeli if Iran develops nuclear weapons.
On the other hand the Israeli regime don't help themselves by occupying Palestinian land and appearing to have an active policy of settling and stealing more Palestinian land, that many Israeli's feel they have a god-given right to based on some old piece of mythology. That doesn't go down well at all in the Islamic world and rightly so, Israel might find itself a lot more popular in the Middle East if they treated the Palestinians better and vacated the occupied territories.
I think the primary threat of a possible war starting comes from Israel, they are highly aggressive and not just in Palestine so I wouldn't be surprised if they made the first move, but as it stands Iran haven't shown any aggression so any attack on them would be breaking international law, if an attack was to be made they would need to gather enough evidence that show that Iran are a serious threat so it will be internationally sanctioned. The West have created a monster with Israel and are like an arrogant, aggressive, annoying sibling of America hiding behind the elder when their actions get them into trouble, its about time the States told them to fuck off.
Quote from: Crow on March 21, 2012, 04:27:46 PM
I think the primary threat of a possible war starting comes from Israel, they are highly aggressive and not just in Palestine so I wouldn't be surprised if they made the first move, but as it stands Iran haven't shown any aggression so any attack on them would be breaking international law, if an attack was to be made they would need to gather enough evidence that show that Iran are a serious threat so it will be internationally sanctioned. The West have created a monster with Israel and are like an arrogant, aggressive, annoying sibling of America hiding behind the elder when their actions get them into trouble, its about time the States told them to fuck off.
Israel would shoot first if they felt they were under a realistic threat. The Jewish lobby in the USA has kept Israel safe and I fear there is little reason to think that will change in years to come.
Quote from: Tank on March 21, 2012, 02:59:42 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 21, 2012, 02:53:25 PM
Quote from: Tank on March 21, 2012, 08:25:49 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 21, 2012, 01:21:22 AM
...
I also think that the region might actually become safer and more peaceful if Iran gets their bombs.
So far no two nuclear powers have gone to war. The most prominent example being India in Pakistan who have been notably better neighbours since they have both acquired nuclear arms. That being said, the most worrying aspect of Iran getting nuclear weapons is the anti-Israeli rhetoric that has been coming out of Tehran. I get the feeling that there are a limited number of fanatics in the power structure of Iran that would attack Israel if they could, irrespective of the outcome. But is my understanding simply the result of Western propaganda intended to create an environment that would allow a pre-emptive attack and/or invasion?
The anti-Israel rhetoric is one thing, but unless Iran themselves want to get nuked into oblivion (by other countries other than Israel in case they nuke them first) they're wanting these bomb purely to tip the balance a bit less in Israel's favour, who is the most powerful militarily in that region.
These sanctions intended to cripple Iran will only confirm their belief that they need more persuasive reasons not to be messed with. It's going to backfire.
If Iran nuked Israel a third party could not retaliate, on Israel's behalf, without breaking international law as there are no mutual defence treaties in place between Israel and any other country. It would take a UN mandate to make an attack legal and you can bet that Russia would veto any attack as Iran virtually borders Russia with only Armenia and Azerbaijan in the way.
That little law could be side stepped very easily. The U.S. simply needs to sink one of it's own ships or perhaps a British ship and blame it on Iran. It's believed to have been done at least once before with the U.S.S Maine. Also, wouldn't a nuclear blast in Israel have major effects on Iran due to the close proximity of the two countries? It simply seems like Iran or Israel nuking each other would be a death warrant for the attacking country as well.
I simply don't see Iran making the first move.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 21, 2012, 03:49:10 PM
A large amount of Iranian people may rise up against the regime if they feel they feel it has been weakened and they have half a chance of toppling it, like has happened in numerous Middle eastern countries over the past year.
...Which would likely result in an epic bloodbath to make whatever them Syrians are doing look like petty theft compared to a killing spree.
Quote from: Tank on March 21, 2012, 04:31:24 PM
Israel would shoot first if they felt they were under a realistic threat. The Jewish lobby in the USA has kept Israel safe and I fear there is little reason to think that will change in years to come.
Its bonkers considering how much sway the Jewish lobby has when you compare the percentage of Jewish people in America, sure NY has the largest Jewish community outside of Israel but that's still a tiny fraction compared to the total inhabitants of New York and the rest of the US.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 21, 2012, 05:29:13 PM
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 21, 2012, 03:49:10 PM
A large amount of Iranian people may rise up against the regime if they feel they feel it has been weakened and they have half a chance of toppling it, like has happened in numerous Middle eastern countries over the past year.
...Which would likely result in an epic bloodbath to make whatever them Syrians are doing look like petty theft compared to a killing spree.
Very true, the current Iranian government does seem particularly violent and repressive. Unfortunately I also think the killing of citizens by the Syrian government is far from over yet. I find it deeply depressing that people want power that much that they will happily butcher their fellow citizens and rule through violence, fear and repression.
Eh... I think there are three possible short-term outcomes in Syria - the regime wins (maybe by virtue of the opposition "taking the hint", unlikely as it is), the outside world actively interferes with all possible implications OR an all-out civil war, in which case my money is on the guy with the palace.
That said, the leadership of Syrian opposition seems to be made of the same dirt as the current leadership of the country, so going with "the evil you know", I lean towards government forces victory being preferable.