Tank recently had a thread as to the probability of a new war; now we have the following.
The first article is from the American Conservative, which doesn't scream truth given the name of the site.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/israel-encircles-iran/
QuoteIsrael is tightening the noose around Iran. The Israeli government has signed a secret agreement with the government of Azerbaijan to lease two former Soviet military airfields located close to the Iranian border. One of the facilities is being used as an intelligence collection site, with advanced Sigint capabilities and preparations underway for drone operations. The other base is being designated a search-and-rescue facility. It will eventually have helicopters that will presumably be dispatched to aid downed Israeli fliers if there is a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. The base will also have limited refueling and recovery capabilities for planes too damaged to make the long flight back to Israel over Iraqi or Saudi airspace. The Azerbaijani bases are much closer to the prime Iranian nuclear targets at Natanz and Fordow than are airfields in Israel itself. Recent Iranian government and media complaints about threatening Azerbaijani activities reflect official concern on the part of Tehran over the new developments...
You also have this, with other multiple sources stating Israel just bought an airfield the size of a small country.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/israel-buys-azeri-base-to-strike-iran-report/930286/
It could be they are simply posturing, but I'm not at all optimistic there won't be a U.S./Israeli strike within the year.
Well, if they don't have a sense not to make more mess than is there already, one can hope they'll at east get a thoroughly bloody nose for it.
Is there somewhere I can go and start my own country? :P
Quote from: Velma on March 31, 2012, 01:34:49 AM
Is there somewhere I can go and start my own country? :P
There will shortly be some free real estate in the middle east, it may be a little radioactive.
Quote from: Tank on March 31, 2012, 07:08:46 AM
There will shortly be some free real estate in the middle east, it may be a little radioactive.
And don't you DARE set up an opposing Evil Base there! >:( That's Asmo's. He wanted it first.
You can has like... Greenland. The Danes, they don't need that.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 31, 2012, 08:34:34 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 31, 2012, 07:08:46 AM
There will shortly be some free real estate in the middle east, it may be a little radioactive.
And don't you DARE set up an opposing Evil Base there! >:( That's Asmo's. He wanted it first.
You can has like... Greenland. The Danes, they don't need that.
I already have my base, it's called Cuba 8)
Quote from: Tank on March 31, 2012, 08:36:13 AM
I already have my base, it's called Cuba 8)
Oh! Yes, can has that too. A word of advise, evil to evil, get some more new cars. That car park there is... Embarrassing.
Quote from: Asmodean on March 31, 2012, 08:40:06 AM
Quote from: Tank on March 31, 2012, 08:36:13 AM
I already have my base, it's called Cuba 8)
Oh! Yes, can has that too. A word of advise, evil to evil, get some more new cars. That car park there is... Embarrassing.
Sod the cars. It's the cigars I like!
Anyone think that a strike into Iran might be this elections "October Surprise"?
These submarines make a serious difference to the balance of power in and around the Middle East http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/germany-may-sell-2-more-dolphin-subs-to-israel-for-117b-01528/
Basically these subs can carry and launch nuclear capable cruise missiles giving Israel a Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) capability. None of the gulf states have significant anti-submarine assets and Israel can deploy these subs in the Med, Red Sea, Persian Gulf or Indian Ocean. Their Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) systems give them a sustainable underwater loiter capability way beyond conventional diesel/electric boats. With these boats suitably armed and deployed Iran could not carry out an effective pre-emptive strike and be sure of no retaliation.
stop the world, I want to get off
I don't think the US will strike Iran. Obama and his team, in my admittedly optimistic view, seem to understand the repercussions of such a move, not to mention the fact that a lot of evidence indicates that Iran has stalled its missile program. They may be up to no good, but they can be contained.
Israel, on the other hand, is a different story. Netanyahu is a hawk in a government dominated by right-wingers, the religious, sympathizers of the settler movement, etc. And Israel has pulled off bombings of nuclear sites before with little repercussion, such as Iraq in the 80's and Syria in recent years.
Frankly, nothing would help the Iranians more than Israel bombing them. They have less sympathy from other countries in the middle east due to their intransigence and the sanctions are hurting them, not to mention the schism between Ahmadinejhad (sic) and Khamenei. But bomb them, and now they all have a common enemy to unite against.
Iran is like an irritating yapping little dog. If you kick it you'll be considered cruel and spiteful. So however annoying it is it's best just left alone.
Quote from: Tank on April 08, 2012, 09:30:37 AM
Iran is like an irritating yapping little dog. If you kick it you'll be considered cruel and spiteful. So however annoying it is it's best just left alone.
It probably bites if kicked too.
You kick it enough and it will try to find ways to be more than just a little yapping dog.
I think we're dragging this metaphor a little too far.
Quote from: Tank on April 09, 2012, 09:15:58 AM
I think we're dragging this metaphor a little too far.
Well, it wasn't a terribly good metaphor, so we tried to sort of... Improve it. ;D
Quote from: Firebird on April 08, 2012, 02:39:54 AM
Frankly, nothing would help the Iranians more than Israel bombing them. They have less sympathy from other countries in the middle east due to their intransigence and the sanctions are hurting them, not to mention the schism between Ahmadinejhad (sic) and Khamenei. But bomb them, and now they all have a common enemy to unite against.
Most of the rest of the Muslim Middle East fears and dislikes Iran so might not oppose a military strike against them. I remember when wikileaks revealed secret memos from many Middle Eastern countries urging the US to attack Iran
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-saudis-iran
Plus Iran are mainly Shi'ites and the majority of the Middle East are Sunni. Many Sunni don't like Shi'ites, often just viewing them as heretics.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on April 11, 2012, 05:05:12 PM
Quote from: Firebird on April 08, 2012, 02:39:54 AM
Frankly, nothing would help the Iranians more than Israel bombing them. They have less sympathy from other countries in the middle east due to their intransigence and the sanctions are hurting them, not to mention the schism between Ahmadinejhad (sic) and Khamenei. But bomb them, and now they all have a common enemy to unite against.
Most of the rest of the Muslim Middle East fears and dislikes Iran so might not oppose a military strike against them. I remember when wikileaks revealed secret memos from many Middle Eastern countries urging the US to attack Iran
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-saudis-iran
Plus Iran are mainly Shi'ites and the majority of the Middle East are Sunni. Many Sunni don't like Shi'ites, often just viewing them as heretics.
Yes, very true. I hate how these countries are too scared to go after Iran themselves, so they try to goad us into doing their dirty work for them.
From a purely strategic perspective, the invasion of Iraq was a disaster in many ways, because it removed an effective counter-balance to Iran in the region. Don't get me started on the humanitarian perspective.