Israel - Iran and regional players | Please post respectfully

[Raoul]

And risk Iran retaliating by nuking Israel or Gulf States where thousands of US servicemen are stationed? Not exactly a sound plan that.

They would probably be smart enough to move them out of the area if such a conflict were to ever take place.

 

[Raoul]

North Korea is a threat to their neighbours who are big allies to the US. Iran is never going to use nukes on Israel, they are neither stupid nor have a genocidal wish to eliminate their own country.

If true, then there's no need for nukes in the first place. There is currently a push within Iranian political circles to destroy Israel by 2041, so perhaps we should actually listen to what they're saying.

 

[Kaos]

They would probably be smart enough to move them out of the area if such a conflict were to ever take place.

And I suppose you propose relocating the millions of Israelis and Gulf Arabs out of the region too? What you're suggesting just isn't realistic whatsoever. No nuclear power has ever been invaded in history, and there's a very good reason for that.

 

[Raoul]

And I suppose you propose relocating the millions of Israelis and Gulf Arabs out of the region too? What you're suggesting just isn't realistic whatsoever. No nuclear power has ever been invaded in history, and there's a very good reason for that.

That's something the Iranians will need to take into consideration before getting nukes. The Saudis and Iranians have only just very recently had a bit of a thaw in relations, but that would go south in a hurry if the Iranians were to get nukes since there's no way MBS would not do the same.

 

[Kaos]

That's something the Iranians will need to take into consideration before getting nukes. The Saudis and Iranians have only just very recently had a bit of a thaw in relations, but that would go south in a hurry if the Iranians were to get nukes since there's no way MBS would not do the same.

I think Saudi relations are the least of their concerns if the US decide to invade them. More to the point - invading them while they have nukes is impossible, especially if you want to avoid the Iranians taking down millions of Israelis and Gulf Arabs with them. Its just not a palatable option for the US to even indulge in.

And I don't think they're bothered by the Saudis getting a nuke in return anyway. It doesn't change anything in the status quo considering their biggest adversaries in Israel and the US are already nuclear armed nations. They will have already achieved their goal of obtaining a nuclear deterrence and in turn shifting the balance of power in the region. What the Saudis or anyone else do to react is irrelevant. On the contrary MBS may simply seek his own nuke, and then proceed to maintain a cordial albeit cold relationship with Iran considering what would be at stake for both nations.

 

[Raoul]

I think Saudi relations are the least of their concerns if the US decide to invade them. More to the point - invading them while they have nukes is impossible, especially if you want to avoid the Iranians taking down millions of Israelis and Gulf Arabs with them. Its just not a palatable option for the US to even indulge in.

And I don't think they're bothered by the Saudis getting a nuke in return anyway. It doesn't change anything in the status quo considering their biggest adversaries in Israel and the US are already nuclear armed nations. They will have already achieved their goal of obtaining a nuclear deterrence and in turn shifting the balance of power in the region. What the Saudis or anyone else do to react is irrelevant. On the contrary MBS may simply seek his own nuke, and then proceed to maintain a cordial albeit cold relationship with Iran considering what would be at stake for both nations.

Iran would not know how to defend a US attack, even with primitive tactical nukes on hand. The best way forward for Iran is to kick the theocratic, totalitarian rulers out and go democratic. They would become immensely more powerful than now and would be widely well received again internationally.

 

[Kaos]

Iran would not know how to defend a US attack, even with primitive tactical nukes on hand. The best way forward for Iran is to kick the theocratic, totalitarian rules out and go democratic. They would become immensely more powerful than now and would be widely well received again internationally.

Doesn't answer the question of how the US would be able to invade a nuclear armed Iran without there being catastrophic implications for their allies in the region.

 

[Raoul]

Doesn't answer the question of how the US would be able to invade a nuclear armed Iran without there being catastrophic implications for their allies in the region.

The allies wouldn't be involved in such an attack, so unless the Iranian regime wanted to go to war with neighboring countries, they wouldn't be able to attack anyone.

 

[the_cliff]

The allies wouldn't be involved in such an attack, so unless the Iran regime wanted to go to war with neighboring countries, they wouldn't be able to attack anyone.

This is not true, no way does the US get into a war with Iran without the UAE/Saudi/Israel being dragged into it. Whether they are involved are not would not matter to Iran.

 

[Raoul]

This is not true, no way does the US get into a war with Iran without the UAE/Saudi/Israel being dragged into it. Whether they are involved are not would not matter to Iran.

If those countries aren't a part of the conflict then there's no reason for them to be targets. On the other hand, if there is a war with Iran a vast majority of the fighting would take place on Iranian territory and would probably involve the Iranian military's capabilities to strike beyond their own borders being removed before they had a chance to hit other countries. Second, would be no incentive for Iran to want to hit Saudi Arabia in such a scenario since they wouldn't want other countries going to war with them.

 

[the_cliff]

If those countries aren't a part of the conflict then there's no reason for them to be targets. On the other hand, if there is a war with Iran a vast majority of the fighting would take place on Iranian territory and would probably involve the Iranian military's capabilities to strike beyond their own borders being removed before they had a chance to hit other countries. Second, would be no incentive for Iran to want to hit Saudi Arabia in such a scenario since they wouldn't want other countries going to war with them.

The US would be attacking from their military bases around the region which in Irans eyes would automatically implicate UAE/Bahrain/Kuwait/Qatar etc. in the war. Saudi could probably get away with it. UAE/Bahrain/Qatar and the others definitely won't.

 

[Raoul]

The US would be attacking from their military bases around the region which in Irans eyes would automatically implicate UAE/Bahrain/Kuwait/Qatar etc. in the war. Saudi could probably get away with it. UAE/Bahrain/Qatar and the others definitely won't.

They most likely wouldn't because they would need to get permission from those countries, which likely wouldn't happen. For instance, in 2003 the US wanted to invade Iraq from Turkey (as well as from the south) but had to stand down on their northern ground invasion plans when the Turkish parliament voted to deny the request (they lost by a single vote), which resulted in no use of Turkish territory for the early part of the ground war. Similar agreements would need to come from the likes of Bahrain, Qatar, and UAE where the US has bases. Those countries would probably not allow it, which means they would use strategic bombers from Diego Garcia, carrier strike groups from the Arabian sea, subs from the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, and so on.

 

[maniak]

Schrödinger's atomic iran. At the same time a terrible danger to the region and also completely unable to attack anyone or threaten the US.

 

[Kaos]

The allies wouldn't be involved in such an attack, so unless the Iran regime wanted to go to war with neighboring countries, they wouldn't be able to attack anyone.

Attacking a nuclear Iran is endgame stuff. They're not going to go out silently and you can guarantee they'd go full scorched earth and lob a nuke at Israel or one of the Gulf states. Whether they drag other nations into the war or not is irrelevant considering they'd be a cornered, wounded animal on the way out, so they're not going to be thinking about future foreign affairs in a last stand.

This whole idea that the US can just successfully invade a nuclear Iran, be home in time for tea and there being no regional repercussions for their allies is wishful thinking. This isn't a video game where you click a few buttons, move units around and win.

Its precisely the same reason NATO has been hesitant to put boots on the ground and directly attack Russian forces. The consequences are disastrous. Heck, its the same reason no one is even entertaining striking a nuclear nation first. Like it or not MAD works, and its precisely the reason major (nuclear) powers have not been in direct conflict with one another since WW2. Iran realise this, and hence it makes complete sense for them to go nuclear considering what happened to their neighbours across the border.

 

[Raoul]

Attacking a nuclear Iran is endgame stuff. They're not going to go out silently and you can guarantee they'd go full scorched earth and lob a nuke at Israel or one of the Gulf states. Whether they drag other nations into the war or not is irrelevant considering they'd be a cornered, wounded animal on the way out, so they're not going to be thinking about future foreign affairs in a last stand.

This whole idea that the US can just successfully invade a nuclear Iran, be home in time for tea and there being no regional repercussions for their allies is wishful thinking. This isn't a video game where you click a few buttons, move units around and win.

Its precisely the same reason NATO has been hesitant to put boots on the ground and directly attack Russian forces. The consequences are disastrous. Heck, its the same reason no one is even entertaining striking a nuclear nation first. Like it or not MAD works, and its precisely the reason major (nuclear) powers have not been in direct conflict with one another since WW2. Iran realise this, and hence it makes complete sense for them to go nuclear considering what happened to their neighbours across the border.

Yes, they wouldn't go silently, but ultimately, they wouldn't be able to stop it. At the end of the day the world is still a dominance hierarchy and there are stiff penalties for challenging its two leading nation states. Iran, is a moderate regional power that shouldn't fool itself into believing that getting nukes would preserve its dictatorship from annihilation if it tries anything against the US or its allies.

 

[Kaos]

Yes, they wouldn't go silently, but ultimately, they wouldn't be able to stop it. At the end of the day the world is still a dominance hierarchy and there are stiff penalties for challenging its two leading nation states. Iran, is a moderate regional power that shouldn't fool itself into believing that getting nukes would preserve its dictatorship from annihilation if it tries anything against the US or its allies.

They wouldn't directly attack the US or allies though. They're not brazenly stupid. The motivation is almost certainly to prevent the reverse scenario.

 

[Raoul]

They wouldn't directly attack the US or allies though. They're not brazenly stupid. The motivation is almost certainly to prevent the reverse scenario.

Among middle eastern nations (Iran included) its only the Iranian regime that is expansionist by way of having its tentacles in Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq. Therefore, it strains credulity to make the case Iran are simply protecting themselves when they are using proxies to go on the attack abroad. Adding nukes to such a scenario obviously doesn't make sense, and would simply be a needlessly escalatory move that would cause a regional arms race. The idea should be to reduce tensions, not increase them.

 

[jadaba]

Among middle eastern nations (Iran included) its only the Iranian regime that is expansionist by way of having its tentacles in Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq. Therefore, it strains credulity to make the case Iran are simply protecting themselves when they are using proxies to go on the attack abroad. Adding nukes to such a scenario obviously doesn't make sense, and would simply be a needlessly escalatory move that would cause a regional arms race. The idea should be to reduce tensions, not increase them.

Surely you must be aware of the UAE's tentacles in Yemen in its financial & weapons backing of the separatist STC, or its military support of the RSF in Sudan, or Saudi's backing of factions and groups competing with the above in both Yemen and Sudan, or the UAE and Egypt's backing of Haftar with weapons and airstrikes in Libya, or even how Lebanon's PM was taken hostage by Saudi and made to resign? The region is completely riddled with foreign intervention through proxy aggression, and framing Iran regime as the only one engaging in expansionist behaviour is to completely ignore the same expansionist policies conducted by the US' allies.

 

[Raoul]

Surely you must be aware of the UAE's tentacles in Yemen in its financial & weapons backing of the separatist STC, or its military support of the RSF in Sudan, or Saudi's backing of factions and groups competing with the above in both Yemen and Sudan, or the UAE and Egypt's backing of Haftar with weapons and airstrikes in Libya, or even how Lebanon's PM was taken hostage by Saudi and made to resign? The region is completely riddled with foreign intervention through proxy aggression, and framing Iran regime as the only one engaging in expansionist behaviour is to completely ignore the same expansionist policies conducted by the US' allies.

Yes to a degreee. Dubai is a hub where a lot of money flows through - both for Iran, as well as for former groups like Al-Qaeda and other similar militant organizations. The Saudis are obviously no saints in any of this either, but at last MBS appears to have gotten the picture that kidnapping Hariri, holding his own relatives hostage in hotels, killing journalists, isn't the way to go and has since gone on an aggresive campaign to go more legit, which is something that will benefit Saudi in the long run. That isn't however the case in Iran, who continue to agitate against Israel through Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as directly against Saudi through the Houthis.

 

[Jam]

Just came to say bang on - you put it more articulately than I could.

I'd also like to remind @Jam that he's viewing everything from a very Western-centric, orientalist lens, where it's easy to say 'we' can be trusted with nuclear weapons but those 'other' folk can't. The Afghan and Iraq war should really serve as a blueprint of why every nation should want nuclear weapons. The US looting and destabilising both countries and their neighbours for decades has been an ugly stain on that region in that time. (Although I agree with you @Jam that I'd rather we advocate for nuclear disarmament although the horse has bolted on that front).

Raoul pretty much covered what my replies to the quotes of my post would have been. But just want to return to this one again - when I specifically stated that being particularly against Iran having nukes isn’t in favour of Israel and the US having or acquiring further nuclear arms.

Let me be clear; the US and Israel have appalling records in the Middle East.

Iran having nuclear weapons is good for absolutely no one. No it doesn’t benefit the regular Iranian people as it further consolidates current governance which do more harm than good for its people.

 

[Kaos]

Raoul pretty much covered what my replies to the quotes of my post would have been. But just want to return to this one again - when I specifically stated that being particularly against Iran having nukes isn’t in favour of Israel and the US having or acquiring further nuclear arms.

Let me be clear; the US and Israel have appalling records in the Middle East.

Iran having nuclear weapons is good for absolutely no one. No it doesn’t benefit the regular Iranian people as it further consolidates current governance which do more harm than good for its people.

I agree, I would want nothing more than the Iranians to be free from theocracy. But I also understand their regime's reasoning for wanting to acquire nukes from a self-preservation perspective.

One thing I certainly don't wish for the Iranians is the 'gift' of freedom the US gave the Iraqis.

 

[The United]

Raoul pretty much covered what my replies to the quotes of my post would have been. But just want to return to this one again - when I specifically stated that being particularly against Iran having nukes isn’t in favour of Israel and the US having or acquiring further nuclear arms.

Let me be clear; the US and Israel have appalling records in the Middle East.

Iran having nuclear weapons is good for absolutely no one. No it doesn’t benefit the regular Iranian people as it further consolidates current governance which do more harm than good for its people.

Well, North Korea having nuclear weapons did counterbalance whatever there was and did good for their people as well. But wait, I don't know what is going on there for them anyway.

 

[jadaba]

Yes to a degreee. Dubai is a hub where a lot of money flows through - both for Iran, as well as for former groups like Al-Qaeda and other similar militant organizations. The Saudis are obviously no saints in any of this either, but at last MBS appears to have gotten the picture that kidnapping Hariri, holding his own relatives hostage in hotels, killing journalists, isn't the way to go and has since gone on an aggresive campaign to go more legit, which is something that will benefit Saudi in the long run. That isn't however the case in Iran, who continue to agitate against Israel through Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as directly against Saudi through the Houthis.

But both the UAE and Saudi are still lobbing bombs in other countries in a comparable manner to Iran, the main difference is the breadth of their proxies rather than depth - as Iran's stretches across more countries. But there's a lot to suggest that while Hezbollah is a pure Iranian proxy, the influence of Iran on Hamas and the Houthis is exaggerated. Sure both benefit from some arms shipments, but they don't act under direct orders from Iran.

Iran's undoubtedly a force for instability in the region, as are its adversaries Israel, Saudi and the UAE. I'm unconvinced by the idea that it shouldn't develop nuclear weapons because of any uniquely expansionist tendencies, simply because I don't see evidence of them. But I am convinced that it having nukes would result in more prudent regional approaches from all the region's bad actors that'd result in more stability.

 

[the_cliff]

They most likely wouldn't because they would need to get permission from those countries, which likely wouldn't happen. For instance, in 2003 the US wanted to invade Iraq from Turkey (as well as from the south) but had to stand down on their northern ground invasion plans when the Turkish parliament voted to deny the request (they lost by a single vote), which resulted in no use of Turkish territory for the early part of the ground war. Similar agreements would need to come from the likes of Bahrain, Qatar, and UAE where the US has bases. Those countries would probably not allow it, which means they would use strategic bombers from Diego Garcia, carrier strike groups from the Arabian sea, subs from the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, and so on.

I understand your point but surely stopping Iran at this point in time would require more than what you're saying. Either the US would have to move more of it's military assets into the Middle East or they would be forced to use the military bases of the Gulf countries. Iran have missiles capable of taking out carriers and destroyers. I know no one really knows Irans missile capabilities and their claims could be just claims but I doubt the US take that chance.

 

[the_cliff]

But both the UAE and Saudi are still lobbing bombs in other countries in a comparable manner to Iran, the main difference is the breadth of their proxies rather than depth - as Iran's stretches across more countries. But there's a lot to suggest that while Hezbollah is a pure Iranian proxy, the influence of Iran on Hamas and the Houthis is exaggerated. Sure both benefit from some arms shipments, but they don't act under direct orders from Iran.

Iran's undoubtedly a force for instability in the region, as are its adversaries Israel, Saudi and the UAE. I'm unconvinced by the idea that it shouldn't develop nuclear weapons because of any uniquely expansionist tendencies, simply because I don't see evidence of them. But I am convinced that it having nukes would result in more prudent regional approaches from all the region's bad actors that'd result in more stability.

The Houthis and Hamas are not Irans proxies. That's an American invention and what their press say. In the Arab world no one considers them an Iranian proxy, allies sure, given weapons and funded sure but not Iranian proxies. You could make the argument that Hamas is more of a Qatari/Egyptian/Algerian proxy than an Iranian one.

Is Israel an American proxy ? or maybe the UAE and Saudi are too.

 

[VorZakone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Idxomer]

Raoul pretty much covered what my replies to the quotes of my post would have been. But just want to return to this one again - when I specifically stated that being particularly against Iran having nukes isn’t in favour of Israel and the US having or acquiring further nuclear arms.

Let me be clear; the US and Israel have appalling records in the Middle East.

Iran having nuclear weapons is good for absolutely no one. No it doesn’t benefit the regular Iranian people as it further consolidates current governance which do more harm than good for its people.

I would be more inclined toward this argument than any nonsense about them nuking Israel.

 

[VorZakone]

So I guess this is just the new status quo then? Seems like no one really gives a shit about Red Sea shipping anymore.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Idxomer]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

More zionist terrorism.

 

[Giggsyking]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

major news

 

[The Corinthian]

Israel bombing in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon unabated. Rogue state that needs to be put down.

 

[VorZakone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Biden has handled Israel like it's Hunter and it's now gone on a major crack binge.

 

[Idxomer]

Israel and the US bombing in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon unabated. Rogue states that need to be put down.

Fixed.

 

[Redplane]

Biden has handled Israel like it's Hunter and it's now gone on a major crack binge.

Let's not pretend though the result would have been any different under another POTUS.

 

[Giggsyking]

Let's not pretend though the result would have been any different under another POTUS.

No, that is exactly what people are saying, stop portraying him as a leader of the free world, he is just another war mongering bloodthirsty president.

 

[YouOnlyLiveTwice]

Hard to feel sorry for the Iranian death regime merchants.

 

[Giggsyking]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Giggsyking]

 

[hasanejaz88]

Hard to feel sorry for the Iranian death regime merchants.

Wonder if you felt the same if Bush, Cheney or Blair were assassinated (Kissinger went out the natural way so can't include him now) the same way. War criminals need to be tried in court, not assassinated without justice.

Edit: I can understand the comparison isn't fully valid since this guy isn't the leader of Iran, but the same question would apply to a senior US military official involved in Iraq.