Interesting comparison... and a good one. I think this will unavoidably end up in some sort of conflict, even though the UN very much doesn't want another Afghanistan or Iraq debacle. I'm also not sure how the US aims to maintain control over three countries in the Middle East, as it is struggling badly already just to keep a lid on two. And this time I think the Allies are even less inclined to join the party... So although I know both sides are stupid enough to go to war, I really don't know how they are going to make it happen.
I think you're right... But things so far (not surprisingly to anyone who had a modicum of common sense) have not exactly been going to plan... this may cause the current US administration to have to change their long-term strategy a bit. They will have to keep the UN on board for one, and this means that they can't just barge in like they did with Iraq. For those wondering about the US's sudden interest in Iran: it is the largest gas provider in the world, and the third largest oil supplier. See a pattern yet?
Islamic state, too . They'll never bother the Saudi's and the UAE gets to run our ports. I could of sworn I didn't vote for Kerry...going in after letting the *******s know for several months is stupid. Plenty of time to load "fuel trucks" for shipment.
Personally, I think Iran just plain sucks as it is; their own nuclear issues arent making things any better, whether they want to play into the US Governments ulterior motives or not. Well, if we can get the UN to help us out, why the hell not? </psychotic warmongerism>
There are several things about this that bug me... The first is history repeating itself. in 2002, just before we invaded Iraq the IAEA said that they knew of no evidence indication that Iraq had or was acrively seeking nuclear weapons. Their biggest complaint was that they were not getting as much information as they wanted on past programs. The Special Commission searching for Chemical and Biological weapons said essentially the same thing, namely that they had them in the past, but we have no evidence that they still have them or are actively working on them. The events that followed vindicated both positions. Now, the situation appears to be repeating itself. The IAEA has recently said that they have no evidence that Iran has or is even woprking towards building a nuclear weapon. Their complaint is that they are not recieving the access they would like to records so that they can be sure. The head of the IAEA has even said that he does not believe it is feasible to deny the Iranians the right to enrich their own uranium, at least on an expiremental scale. It would not surprise me at all if, should we invade Iran, we discover that their nuclear program was entirely peaceful. I agree that the US would be hard pressed to muster the forces to invade Iran at this time, even using bases in Iraq and Afganistan. Also, doing so would serve to alienate the ruling Shiite government in Iraq. I think a third invasion would be a really hard sell, both at home and especially abroad at this point. The American people, even those in Bush's own party, are beginning to see the fallacy of out foriegn policy over the last 5 years and clamor for a withdrawl from Iraq and to a lesser extent Afganistan. Indeed, invading Iran would be a VERY hard sell right now. Internationally, Iran is a mojor supplier of oil to China and Japan, both of which are on the UN security council. A more likley outcome is a cruise missle strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities, which may well be a waste of time since they are very well armored and entirely underground in anticipation of just such a strike. Link to overhead imagry of the site FInally, the lesson we are sending is that the only way to be safe in the modern world is to posess nuclear weapons. Nothing else will protect you.
The concept of actually fighting Iran actually scares me, having spent a lot of time at uni reading up on their military and possible scenarios for war, whether or not its politically desirable or not for it to happen...even for the US, this would be no walk in the park, to say the least! Irans military is well motivated and well equipped compared to Iraq's, and probably more fanatical as well. Iran has a 2 million strong 'peoples militia' known as the Basij...they might be poorly equipped and trained compared to your average professional western soldier, but thats not the point...that many people willing to fight to the death for their own country means a lot of suicide bombers. The Iranians could also wreak havoc in the Gulf by attacking commercial shipping, as they have threatened to do in the past (remember the US 'reflagging' Kuwaiti tankers during the Iran-Iraq war, and using the US Navy to escort them out as a show of force?). Iranian anti-ship systems and defences around the Strait of Hormuz are very strong...the possibility of, say, a US carrier battle fleet having to fight its way past them and into/out of the Gulf once any war has broken out, should have any American (or Brit, if we're to get involved as well) somewhat worried. I think the US would defeat Iran, in as much as reducing the fighting and industrial capacity of the nation to relatively nothing, but it would be a long campaign, and may well involve *very* heavy casualties on the American/western side. As for occupying Iran, well if Afghanistan and Iran are proving difficult, I think Iran would be a whole order of magnitude more difficult to take over. The idea of Iran potentially widening the war, by attacking Saudi/Kuwaiti/UAE shipping (think of the economic impact if no oil tankers could get out of the Gulf), or going against US forces in nearby Iraq, is one that worries me. The problem is, a small scale strike against Iran's nuclear facilities (like what the Israelis did to Iraqs Osiraq nuclear reactor in 1981) would almost certainly not stop Iran's nuclear program - they learned from Iraq, and as such their nuclear research facilities are spread over many sites, are well defended and 'hardened' (if its buried deep enough, hitting it from the air just gets nigh on impossible....read up about the tunnel near Pristina airport the US bombed repeatedly with GBU-28 'bunker busters' during Operation Allied Force to no affect whatsoever if you don't believe me). So you'd be talking in terms of days or weeks rather than a single strike, and this time the US can't wipe its hands and leave it to the Israelis. Israel lacks the military capability to launch a raid from Israeli territory against multiple targets in Iran in any significant way - so if the military option is chosen, it will involve the US and Israel. Though US support or involvement initially may be denied, the US would have to at the very least grant Israel overflight rights in Iraq, and probably provide some in flight refuellingsupport as well, so they'd pretty much be facillitating and taking part in the raid, even if US jets didn't drop any bombs - a fact obvious to anyone in the Middle East with some military knowledge. Both Israel and the US fighting an Arab country would go down like a lead balloon in the rest of the Middle East given already strained relations. Now I don't believe it is in our (as in, the wests) national interest for Iran to have access to nuclear weapons - the problem is that any way of stopping them using military force will risk a wider conflict in the Middle East as I see it, and that can't be good for anyone concerned
I wouldnt underestimate the US's military capability that much; remember, Iraq had one hell of an anti-fighter system before the first gulf war, and stealth bombers defeated them then. Who knows what the USA has now, classfied, that could help give an even more unfair advantage against less technologically advanced opponents.
But the UAE, Pakistan and the Saudi's are all Islamic states; Mecca and Medina are in the UAE! It doesnt matter what religion they are, except, the middle east wont see it that way. I still believe in the UN and I believe in democracy and diplomacy, but noone gets anything because everyone wants it their own way. You could argue we're all ready at war in the middle east and have been having this world war since 2001. I mean, terrorism is GLOBAL and they target EVERYONE who isnt them. The UN is kinda like communism though: a lot of good ideas but nothing anything anyone can ever agree on and work together enough with. I really cant see, at this stage, the US moving into Iran. It wont be as "easy" as Iraq or Afgani and noone will accept a new "leader", it'll just end up the same in the end or another civil war.
Technology can help in a lot of ways, and I have no doubt the US has plenty of classified weapons systems that would give them the edge over Iran. But the Iranians still have the capacity to wreak havoc, using low tech, unconventional tactics - they might all end up dead, but then, I'd venture theres more than just a few who are fanatical enough not to care so long as they take a lot of Americans with them. The occupation of Iraq and Afganistan has showed that, whilst advanced technology gives you a tremendous advantage in certain circumstances whilst fighting a war, the enemy can still inflict casualties using fairly low cost, low tech and unconventional methods. Iran surely knows this as well . Have a read... http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,787017,00.html
The Soviets..er Russians..supplied their latest and greatest SAM's and radar to Iran. Rumor has it they can track the F-117. I still have my money on us should it go that route, though.
Yea, but why did the old USSR give it to Iran? Cause it was fighting Iraq back in the 80s which the US supported. It was the cold war. Im sure the US would just use precision guided missiles though anyway on the known radar/sams. It's not the war you should be worried about, it's the increasing anti-western attitude of the asain community. All it looks like to them is that the white guys are out to "irradicate islam", and if they arent thinking it already, their governments will make them think that.
If we have no allies with us bomb Iran... Either way, Iran is certainly being provocative; if they wanted peace and to prove that their actions werent for nuclear weaponry, they would open up to the international community. Their past clandestine actions and their general hostility is showing that they have something to hide, and that theyre unwilling to let the world see just what - not without a fight anyway, which it, more than likely, will inevitably come down to.
Same here, the US/the west will eventually win any war with Iran, but but you surely have to wonder, at what cost *might* it be won - would hundreds of thousands of dead American servicemen, and millions of dead Arabs & maybe even Israelis, really be worth it, if the war escalated and the currently pro-western states in the Middle East turned extremist, so it ended up being the US & Israel versus a large swathe of the Arab World? Many Arab states are already up in arms about the west, this cartoon fiasco has shown it, just think how US and Israeli action gainst Iran would go down with these people. The extremists like Bin Laden, Zawahiri, the Ayatollahs et al often say the Jews & America are working together against Islam...but never before have they fought together openly against a Muslim statea - now imagine how them acting against Iran would look . Now I didn't see potential for such escalation or widening of the conflict with either of the Gulf Wars, or the war in Afghanistan, all 3 of which I supported wholeheartedly at the time (though my doubts have done nothing but grow over the justification for GW2 since 2003) so please don't think I'm the 'typical' anti-war pacifist type who worries over every military action turning into WW3. But a war with Iran, the way I see it, is very risky (politically, militarily, economically...every way I look at it) and could be very serious indeed. Surely the fear the US has about Iran having nuclear weapons is the death and destruction that it thinks would probably result - afterall, Iran is a state run by a radical, intolerant, militant Islamist theocracy and a President who called for Israel to be wiped off the map - but what if the cost of trying to stop these people getting such weapons ends up being just as bad as that which we think *might* happen if Iran got the bomb? I think its prudent to tread carefully and not get all gung-ho unless every last avenue (the UN, IAEA, and possible sanctions) have been explored first.
I'm referring to the SA-15 Gauntlet/Tor-M1..not the older SA-8. The iron curtain may have fallen but the games aren't over.
