Iran v US confrontation

[MDFC Manager]

What would the Russian role be in the event of this conflict? Purely 'moolah making' by selling hardware to Iran?

 

[The Firestarter]

What would the Russian role be in the event of this conflict? Purely 'moolah making' by selling hardware to Iran?

"Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake"

 

[Carolina Red]

VA. Gets posted to an Infantry battalion in a year.

Well, there’s 3 active MEF. Hopefully he wins the “not deployed” lottery.

 

[shamans]

I don't want to derail the thread but come on its rather odd that when Trump is on the brink of possible starting a war with Iran, your blaming the most anti war voters. Not to mentioned the alternative candidate you wished they voted for is Hilary Clinton, who has a long history of war(Libya has actual slavery now).

But yeah anyway Trump is bad man.

There is pro war and anti war and then there's all over the place not having a clue, i.e trump.

 

[shamans]

Awesome, a year into joining the Marines, my idiot brother could possibly be deployed to Iran.

Hope it doesn't come to that. Have two marine buddies from Iraq and Afghanistan. They're doing well in life now but man it was so rough on them. You can still see how it has changed them if conversations go much deeper.

 

[Eboue]

What's your point

 

[shamans]

If it's not communism, it's laughable?

 

[Eboue]

If it's not communism, it's laughable?

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Trying to frame Hillary as the peace candidate is laughable. And when someone even points this out to you, you still don't get it.

 

[shamans]

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Trying to frame Hillary as the peace candidate is laughable. And when someone even points this out to you, you still don't get it.

So when did I do that?

 

[Eboue]

You're posting in thread about Trump starting a war and you said "feck all of you who didnt vote for Hillary". Anyone with the ability to think about more than one thing at a time understands the point.

 

[Sweet Square]

There is pro war and anti war and then there's all over the place not having a clue, i.e trump.

A war with Iran or blowing the shit out of Iran has been on the republican agenda at the very least since the Bush years. Hilary in 06 didn't rule out attacking Iran(Although she did in the end agree and help with the Iran deal under the Obama administration).

Its been coming for a while. Trump being a complete moron(Look at failed attempted coup in Venezuela)might be our only hope.

 

[Eboue]

Hillary urged Bush to declare the Iranian National Guard a terrorist group. It's bad enough to have an imperialist government starting another war of aggression, we shouldnt have to read the same reactionary bullshit by the same uniformed people every time Trump does something bad.

 

[shamans]

A war with Iran or blowing the shit out of Iran has been on the republican agenda at the very least since the Bush years. Hilary in 06 didn't rule out attacking Iran(Although she did in the end agree and help with the Iran deal under the Obama administration).

Its been coming for a while. Trump being a complete moron(Look at failed attempted coup in Venezuela)might be our only hope.

Well I'm specifically referring to the nuclear deal. Even a pro war politician, who is sensible enough, can do the basics as to knowing when and where to strike a deal for the greater good. Iran had stopped it's nukes as well so there wasn't any threat either. Trump is all over the place. This is why it pissed me (and still does) that people put both Hillary and Trump in the "politicians with some good and some bad category". Hillary has some good and some bad, Trump is a disaster.

As for @Eboue , I've tried battling your "logic" in the capitalism and wealth inequality threads. You're down a path I can't save you from friend so it's best we don't engage.

 

[shamans]

Hillary urged Bush to declare the Iranian National Guard a terrorist group. It's bad enough to have an imperialist government starting another war of aggression, we shouldnt have to read the same reactionary bullshit by the same uniformed people every time Trump does something bad.

If Hillary was president, how likely would an Iran invasion be despite her actions in the past?

 

[Eboue]

If Hillary was president, how likely would an Iran invasion be despite her actions in the past?

I thought you weren't engaging. The answer is no one knows but considering her culpability in the destruction of Libya, her eagerness to intervene in Syria, her support for the Iraq War, her desire to rig Palestinian elections, her unwavering support for Israel or her declaring the Iranian military a terrorist organization I'd say it's a pretty decent possibility.

 

[Sweet Square]

Well I'm specifically referring to the nuclear deal. Even a pro war politician, who is sensible enough, can do the basics as to knowing when and where to strike a deal for the greater good. Iran had stopped it's nukes as well so there wasn't any threat either. Trump is all over the place. This is why it pissed me (and still does) that people put both Hillary and Trump in the "politicians with some good and some bad category". Hillary has some good and some bad, Trump is a disaster.

Again I don't want to derail the thread but it's simply not true that Clinton had some good and some bad. It's all bad(Basically everything @Eboue said) with one glimmer of good - the Iran Deal and this what Clinton said about the deal in 2015

However, Clinton maintained her distrust for the Iranian regime. “I too am deeply concerned about Iranian aggression and need to confront it,” she said. “There is absolutely no reason to trust Iran.” Instead, she insisted her approach to dealing with Iran’s nuclear program would be “distrust but verify”.

Clinton’s disdain for the Iranian government was evident when she dismissed the Islamic Republic’s cooperation with the US in the nuclear deal. “I don’t see Iran as our partner in implementing the agreement,” she said. “I see Iran as our subject in implementing the agreement.”

Further, Clinton made clear she would be willing to launch military strikes against Iran if the regime attempted to contravene its agreement and build a nuclear weapon anyway. “I will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon.”

Clinton also tried to assuage Israeli concerns about the Iran deal. She insisted the agreement makes Israel safer and told Israelis that, if elected, “you’ll never have to question whether we are with you. The United States will always be with you”.

Clinton introduced a five-point plan focused on building regional alliances to counter what called “Iran’s bad behavior in the region”. This will include continued military aid to Israel in particular, as to the US’s Gulf allies, along with taking steps to counter growing Iranian influence in the Middle East, particularly through proxy groups like Hezbollah. She will also emphasize the need to crack down on Iranian human rights abuses, and leave the door open to broadening sanctions on the regime.

But if I have to guess I would say had Clinton been president she wouldn't be pushing a potential war with Iran. But with Venezuela ? I could have easily seen Clinton push a lot harder and backed the coup a lot more. And this what I think people mean why they said both Clinton and Trump are the same etc. With a choice like Clinton and Trump there is no anti war choice, your essentially asking people where in the world do they want to murder brown people. What I'm trying to get across is that american foreign policy goes beyond the presidency.

 

[shamans]

Again I don't want to derail the thread but it's simply not true that Clinton had some good and some bad. It's all bad(Basically everything @Eboue said) with one glimmer of good - the Iran Deal and this what Clinton said about the deal in 2015.

Don't agree with that at all and it's a shame media has led everyone to believe this. I'll leave it at that since my opinion on Clinton's credentials wont change.

 

[sglowrider]

I can't and don't believe even Trump and his hawks would be stupid enough to start a land war with Iran with the goal of at least temporary occupation (if only for a planned quick regime change). If they do start something here, it's surely going to be limited to rocket strikes and bombing runs. That said, if their goal really is regime change, then that's not going to be accomplished from the air.

An occupation seems utterly impossible. Iran is four times as large as Iraq, and more than twice as populous.

Apparently, lessons learnt is so yesterday. Besides Trump knows more than his generals.

A strong, powerful one-two punch and victory's for Trump to grab.

 

[calodo2003]

"Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake"

This.

 

[calodo2003]

I can't and don't believe even Trump and his hawks would be stupid enough to start a land war with Iran with the goal of at least temporary occupation (if only for a planned quick regime change). If they do start something here, it's surely going to be limited to rocket strikes and bombing runs. That said, if their goal really is regime change, then that's not going to be accomplished from the air.

An occupation seems utterly impossible. Iran is four times as large as Iraq, and more than twice as populous.

They just want to be in some sort of armed conflict with Iran to be robust from August through early November 2020. They will play the ‘war fighting president’ card heavily during that time & could potentially increase their base / garner more independent votes & gets Trump re-elected.

 

[2cents]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I think it may be the case that Trump is trying to do a North Korea on this by amping up the war-rhetoric in order to pressure the Iranians to “talk.” Some problems with that:

- That is probably not what brought the North Koreans to the table.
- Iran is not North Korea.
- Unlike in East Asia, there are plenty of states in the Middle East who would support a military confrontation with Iran.
- Trump has surrounded himself with Iran hawks who believe talking is pointless.

All of which means Trump May be walking into a situation he has no control over.

 

[berbatrick]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I think it may be the case that Trump is trying to do a North Korea on this by amping up the war-rhetoric in order to pressure the Iranians to “talk.” Some problems with that:

- That is probably not what brought the North Koreans to the table.
- Iran is not North Korea.
- Unlike in East Asia, there are plenty of states in the Middle East who would support a military confrontation with Iran.
- Trump has surrounded himself with Iran hawks who believe talking is pointless.

All of which means Trump May be walking into a situation he has no control over.

A key event with North Korea was the impeachment of the previous president and the election of a peacenik, he pushed for talks (via the winter Olympic games) while the Trump admin (through Pence) publicly disapproved and sabre-rattled. He had the first meetings with Kim which set up the summit with Trump.
There have been a lot of reports suggesting Trump doesn't want to get involved in a long ground war (over this or Vz) but I think you're right - he has blustered his way into a situation where there might not be the same release valve.

 

[calodo2003]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I think it may be the case that Trump is trying to do a North Korea on this by amping up the war-rhetoric in order to pressure the Iranians to “talk.” Some problems with that:

- That is probably not what brought the North Koreans to the table.
- Iran is not North Korea.
- Unlike in East Asia, there are plenty of states in the Middle East who would support a military confrontation with Iran.
- Trump has surrounded himself with Iran hawks who believe talking is pointless.

All of which means Trump May be walking into a situation he has no control over.

Are you saying many countries would align with us or with Iran?

I could see small coalitions being created quickly on both sides from just the Middle East. I would be shocked if we received any support from former coalition partners from Europe, Japan, or Australia. They depend on Iranian oil & potentially still are smarting from getting into the pointless, never ending Iraq mess.

Trump always rails about Mueller not being confirmed while it’s his unconfirmed National Security Advisor who is ratcheting up the argument for military incursion into Iran. Some dark irony there.

 

[2cents]

Are you saying many countries would align with us or with Iran?

I don’t think many if any regional states would officially, publicly support or join whatever action is taken, but Saudi Arabia and the UAE (and by extension Bahrain) along with Israel would be fully supportive in the background, while the likes of Jordan, Egypt and Kuwait would probably be happy to facilitate without going all in. Of the states that matter Turkey and Qatar would oppose obviously (so would Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, but they’re far less important).

 

[berbatrick]

Iran has an Afghan border, I wonder if that will play a role. And will the Taliban see their primary enemy as the Shias or the Great Satan?

 

[2cents]

Iran has an Afghan border, I wonder if that will play a role. And will the Taliban see their primary enemy as the Shias or the Great Satan?

Iran has supported the Taliban over the years.

 

[calodo2003]

I don’t think many if any regional states would officially, publicly support or join whatever action is taken, but Saudi Arabia and the UAE (and by extension Bahrain) along with Israel would be fully supportive in the background, while the likes of Jordan, Egypt and Kuwait would probably be happy to facilitate without going all in. Of the states that matter Turkey and Qatar would oppose obviously (so would Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, but they’re far less important).

That’s how it may fall out, you are right. I, too, would be a bit surprised to see overt ME alliances created if shooting does start.

 

[2cents]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[africanspur]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I think it may be the case that Trump is trying to do a North Korea on this by amping up the war-rhetoric in order to pressure the Iranians to “talk.” Some problems with that:

- That is probably not what brought the North Koreans to the table.
- Iran is not North Korea.
- Unlike in East Asia, there are plenty of states in the Middle East who would support a military confrontation with Iran.
- Trump has surrounded himself with Iran hawks who believe talking is pointless.

All of which means Trump May be walking into a situation he has no control over.

Genuinely feel quite nauseous reading this.

 

[2cents]

Another delightful side-effect of this would be another Israel-Hezbollah war, with missiles raining down on Israeli cities and the destruction and possibly the re-occupation of parts of south Lebanon and perhaps even Syria.

 

[Kentonio]

One of the wild cards that has been verified to exist in the Iranian armory is the conventional Sunburn missile, a massive improvement versus the Exocet which could turn the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, & the Gulf of Oman into shooting galleries, limiting our ability to insert troops & weaponry en masse into the theater & making us rely more on airborne insertions of both. Supplying by air can be faster, but limited in tonnage / personnel delivered per plane.

If any of those Sunburns are nuclear tipped (which some may very well be), then Iran has a true aircraft carrier killer in its arsenal. Such missiles will able to knock out carrier groups instantaneously. Such a scenario would quite likely be endgame for the Iranians, so they would be more than happy to deploy the conventional SS-N-20s onto disposable small boat platforms & unleash a hell never seen before onto our carrier groups. Not being able to effectively force project from those three waterways will reduce our overall ability to wage war in Iran.

Or perhaps if some of those Chinese DF-21Ds just happened to find their way into Iranian hands..

 

[Adisa]

A war with would break the US-Europe alliance.

 

[Adisa]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

European Capitals? What have we got to do with this? This is on Trump and his gang.

 

[Synco]

Two conflicting thoughts on the possibility of the US actually going for all out war/regime change:

1) they can't be that stupid. If the US seek confrontation, it will be in a much more limited fashion, perhaps even confined to saber rattling, and probably in order to seek a new nuclear deal as a trophy for the "dealmaker in chief". (Not saying these moves can't be reckless or foolish.)

2) there are no guarantees that they aren't that stupid. An unintended escalation is also always a possibility when practicing brinkmanship.

I still tend heavily towards 1), but, especially in light of recent history, 2) can't be excluded.

 

[Port Vale Devil]

By placing billions of dollars worth of military off Iranian waters I’m sure the U.S is expecting some kind of attack on it which will be swiftly blamed on Iran.

 

[Adisa]

The US industrial complex needs constant war.

 

[The Firestarter]

One of the wild cards that has been verified to exist in the Iranian armory is the conventional Sunburn missile, a massive improvement versus the Exocet which could turn the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, & the Gulf of Oman into shooting galleries, limiting our ability to insert troops & weaponry en masse into the theater & making us rely more on airborne insertions of both. Supplying by air can be faster, but limited in tonnage / personnel delivered per plane.

If any of those Sunburns are nuclear tipped (which some may very well be), then Iran has a true aircraft carrier killer in its arsenal. Such missiles will able to knock out carrier groups instantaneously. Such a scenario would quite likely be endgame for the Iranians, so they would be more than happy to deploy the conventional SS-N-20s onto disposable small boat platforms & unleash a hell never seen before onto our carrier groups. Not being able to effectively force project from those three waterways will reduce our overall ability to wage war in Iran.

Saddam was basically a secularist who understood not to utilize WMDS. No telling what the Iranians will do in that regard.

Pretty big "if" regarding nuclear tipped missiles . How is this even a remote possibility, has there been any concrete report for a possession of a nuclear device by Iran, let alone with a size adequate for mounting on a missile ?

 

[Drifter]

I’d be very surprised if any Western allies back Trump. He’s nuts, this is completely unwarranted plus they hate him far more than Americans hates him.

Yeah .Looks like a UK Official as said there is no threat from Iran , which goes against the lies Trump's administration are trying to spin.

 

[Zlatattack]

So will the Great Satan be attacking during Ramadan, or afterwards?

 

[Red Defence]

When Mueller or McGahn announce that they are testifying I’m expecting an increase in hostilities.