An Invasion of Iran is Eminent


Mike Renzulli

Recommended Posts

Adonis,

What Robert calls "triumphalist bluster", and I called - months ago, on the Palestine/Israel thread - your "bombastic chest-thumping", is not doing our 'cause' to introduce rationality to this debate, any good.

You are feeding those who view Islam as one collective, all Muslims as obedient to Jihad.

Which several of us cannot morally accept.

Did you really write "Iran will be much better off than the USA."?!

Your ideas and Iran-prejudice worry me: if you are the best representative of a libertarian-leaning Muslim, then what of the others?

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Adonis,

What Robert calls "triumphalist bluster", and I called - months ago, on the Palestine/Israel thread - your "bombastic chest-thumping", is not doing our 'cause' to introduce rationality to this debate, any good.

You are feeding those who view Islam as one collective, all Muslims as obedient to Jihad.

Which several of us cannot morally accept.

Did you really write "Iran will be much better off than the USA."?!

Your ideas and Iran-prejudice worry me: if you are the best representative of a libertarian-leaning Muslim, then what of the others?

Tony

Well Tony

1. If Iran is attacked, it will become a Jihad that engulfs the whole region and many Muslims from not only the region, but around the world will answer the call to Jihad. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable but we're not talking about the US attacking a secular dictatorship that has very little support outside of its own state, we're also not talking about the US attacking terrorists and extremists.. We're talking about the US attacking a nation and specifically targets that are near holy cities.. Which could kill many innocent civilians and destroy many holy sites.. We're also talking about attacking a place where the leader of the nation is a religious head for millions not just in Iran but all over the world and who is not afraid call such a Jihad..

9/11 caused not only most Americans but most Westerners to want revenge for those attacks and want war which has led to overt wars on two nations, covert wars on many more.. Do you think that the Iranians have no pride? That they'd not act similarly if their own country was attacked? Do you expect them to just sit there and take such an attack without response? If you do, I think you're delusional..

I'm not chest beating, I'm not even blustering.. All I'm trying to do is make you aware that such a war will not be a piece of cake for the US like the war mongers who wish to encourage such a war in the West would have you believe.. That the Iranians are very prepared for this and I've given examples of how they're ready and willing to sacrifice and how they've got the technology and the tactics to do so efficiently. Does that mean I want such a war? No.. Absolutely not.. It would only make the Iranians who are fundamentalists stronger because it'll prove their point that the West is trying to ruin their nation and it will bring more and more people to their side..

The best reform is done in Iran when the West leaves it alone.. When the West interferes the reformers get upset because it makes their job even harder..

2. Yes, I wrote that Iran will be much better off than the USA and believe that to be the case.. I explained why.. Do you disagree? If so, why do you disagree?

3. I have no Iran prejudice, I just have an understanding of the way that Iran works, the way the region works and the way that wars are fought.. Iran won't be a push over, they're much smarter than people give them credit for and over the past 20 years they've been preparing for this war and building their forces conventional and unconventional military forces in addition to their network outside of Iran whilst the US has been focused on Iraq and other places.

This will be a war that the US won't be able to handle without nuclear weapons and I can assure you, using them will make things a lot worse.

4. As a Libertarian I believe each nation has he right to defend itself against transgression.. This right doesn't only apply to the US but applies to all nations.. Therefore, if you believe that being a Libertarian means simply accepting what the US government has to say and accepting what they do to innocent nations without question then I'm sorry, I think you have your definition of Libertarianism mixed up.. If the Iranians are attacked, then they have the right to defend themselves just as the Americans have the same right..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adonis,

The only problem with Iran is the dirty hands its government has in sponsoring terrorism. This is what is causing all the bad feelings from other nations.

The reasoning is that since Iran's government sponsors blowing up civilians through a series of deceptive and covert manners, it is reasonable to assume that once it gets its hands on nukes, it will use them to blow up civilians.

You may believe that reasoning to be wrong for a series of your own observations, but it is reasonable. And that is exactly what is driving people's attitude toward Iran.

Iran's government would do well to address the issue of its sponsorship of terrorists. And I mean address it for real, not just point fingers back. If it does not, this thing is going to erupt.

My suspicion is that the Iranian government (not the Iranian people) want that eruption.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adonis,

I may not be an expert in Iranian politics or in touch with the thoughts and feelings of Muslims in the region and around the world, but I think you're missing a big part of this - the global economy. While on the face of things, China, Russia, etc. may appear to not be taking sides or hoping for the US to stumble - they are not stupid. I don't believe any of those countries would favor an Iranian victory over an economic collapse in the US. The global economy is a temperamental thing and no matter what you think or others may say - the US still plays a dominant role as importers/consumers of foreign goods. Oil, on the other hand, is going to be in the ground regardless of who is in power, who pumps it out, who lives on the surface above it , or the religion that people practices. A speedy end to the war would be in most everyones favor with stakes in Iranian resources - and since I don't believe they'd actually sit around and watch the US collapse, that leaves only one other option...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adonis,

The only problem with Iran is the dirty hands its government has in sponsoring terrorism. This is what is causing all the bad feelings from other nations.

The reasoning is that since Iran's government sponsors blowing up civilians through a series of deceptive and covert manners, it is reasonable to assume that once it gets its hands on nukes, it will use them to blow up civilians.

You may believe that reasoning to be wrong for a series of your own observations, but it is reasonable. And that is exactly what is driving people's attitude toward Iran.

Iran's government would do well to address the issue of its sponsorship of terrorists. And I mean address it for real, not just point fingers back. If it does not, this thing is going to erupt.

My suspicion is that the Iranian government (not the Iranian people) want that eruption.

Michael

What terrorism does Iran support exactly Michael? I think it's important to define this.. The only group that Iran provides substantial support and direction to is Hezbollah in the South of Lebanon that is fighting to liberate territories occupied by Israeli since 1982.. Never has Iran actually supported nor directed Hezbollah to intentionally target Israeli civilians to try and build up the Israeli civilian body count.. That's counter productive.. So what are you referring to?

Also, the US has had nuclear weapons for more than 50 years, since then so has Britain, Russia, France, China, India and Pakistan and never have one of their proxies been given a nuclear weapon to use against their enemies.. Even during the Cold War when the nuclear threat was greatest it was not done.. Iran has also had access to chemical and biological weapons and never used such weapons themselves, nor have they given such weapons to their proxies.. So how can you qualify such a statement Michael?

Adonis,

I may not be an expert in Iranian politics or in touch with the thoughts and feelings of Muslims in the region and around the world, but I think you're missing a big part of this - the global economy. While on the face of things, China, Russia, etc. may appear to not be taking sides or hoping for the US to stumble - they are not stupid. I don't believe any of those countries would favor an Iranian victory over an economic collapse in the US. The global economy is a temperamental thing and no matter what you think or others may say - the US still plays a dominant role as importers/consumers of foreign goods. Oil, on the other hand, is going to be in the ground regardless of who is in power, who pumps it out, who lives on the surface above it , or the religion that people practices. A speedy end to the war would be in most everyones favor with stakes in Iranian resources - and since I don't believe they'd actually sit around and watch the US collapse, that leaves only one other option...

And that option would be what exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The option would be that countries will either openly or covertly support a US victory. The global financial situation will benefit or at least not suffer (as much) if the US "wins" or comes out of it "okay" than if Iran "wins" or does grave damage to the US economy. Just my theory - I simply think that, when push comes to shove, developed nations will make the rational choice, that is, to protect their economic interests over irrational religious or even political differences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The option would be that countries will either openly or covertly support a US victory. The global financial situation will benefit or at least not suffer (as much) if the US "wins" or comes out of it "okay" than if Iran "wins" or does grave damage to the US economy. Just my theory - I simply think that, when push comes to shove, developed nations will make the rational choice, that is, to protect their economic interests over irrational religious or even political differences.

Well they've already started aiding the US in many ways.. The recent sanctions on Iran were a demonstration of that.. The Iranians had previously ordered several sets of the newest version of S-300 Surface to Air Missiles from Russia, these are some of the most advanced SAM systems in existence and would have made any air attacks against Iran very difficult even with stealth technology. However, Russia withheld sale of these weapons and then sanctions were passed making it illegal to sell them to Iran. This could be disastrous to Iran's layered defense system.. However the latest reports show that Iran was not only able to obtain these from Belarus, but have also developed their own by reverse engineering.

The question is, have these nations who might support the US victory, either covertly or overtly acted quickly enough? I believe it's too late as Iran is well prepared for such eventualities..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adonis,

We can start here. (I don't have time to find better sources right now.) It's from a 2007 report by the Council on Foreign Relations, which tends to be objective politics-wise.

State Sponsors: Iran

I can dig up USA government reports if you like. But so can you. No need to even go that far to know that this is the official view of the USA government. Here is a much more recent news story from Arab News about an interview with Hillary Clinton:

Iran sponsors terrorism: Clinton

By RIMA AL-MUKHTAR

ARAB NEWS

Feb 16, 2010 23:35 Updated: Feb 17, 2010 14:34

I pulled these things from the first page of a simple Google search.

Google the following:

Iran sponsor terrorism

There's oodles of stuff.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adonis,

We can start here. (I don't have time to find better sources right now.) It's from a 2007 report by the Council on Foreign Relations, which tends to be objective politics-wise.

State Sponsors: Iran

I can dig up USA government reports if you like. But so can you. No need to even go that far to know that this is the official view of the USA government. Here is a much more recent news story from Arab News about an interview with Hillary Clinton:

Iran sponsors terrorism: Clinton

By RIMA AL-MUKHTAR

ARAB NEWS

Feb 16, 2010 23:35 Updated: Feb 17, 2010 14:34

I pulled these things from the first page of a simple Google search.

Google the following:

Iran sponsor terrorism

There's oodles of stuff.

Michael

Ok but she didn't state which terrorists Iran supports in the interview.. So I mean, can you be more specific.. If you're stating these things you should be able to name the terrorist groups which Iran supports and directs to commit attacks against civilians..

Also an interesting point is that any organization you do claim is supported by Iran, even though unsubstantiated would still be less than the support for terrorist organizations that the US government has given and still gives even today..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adonis,

I don't want to get into a "my missile is bigger than your missile" debate, but it must be acknowledged that if the US is desperate or our economic survival is seen as desperate then the US has other options rather than nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons - namely remote guided/unmanned aircraft. Public opinion towards such devices is unfavorable at the moment, but I can see that changing.

I must say that I am dead set against any war as I believe, in war, nobody wins. However, I don't think we can look to Vietnam or our recent wars as examples of what a war with Iran would look like. Iran is viewed, and you make a good case for it being true, as a capable and well armed "enemy" - the US and its allies will get public support for using a level of force that wasn't acceptable against nations who were viewed as weak or vulnerable.

That said, I hope we never find out who is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adonis,

I don't want to get into a "my missile is bigger than your missile" debate, but it must be acknowledged that if the US is desperate or our economic survival is seen as desperate then the US has other options rather than nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons - namely remote guided/unmanned aircraft. Public opinion towards such devices is unfavorable at the moment, but I can see that changing.

I'm sorry, but unmanned aircraft wouldn't be enough.. I mean unmanned vehicles are a means of deliverance of munitions.. I was referring to the munitions themselves..

I must say that I am dead set against any war as I believe, in war, nobody wins. However, I don't think we can look to Vietnam or our recent wars as examples of what a war with Iran would look like. Iran is viewed, and you make a good case for it being true, as a capable and well armed "enemy" - the US and its allies will get public support for using a level of force that wasn't acceptable against nations who were viewed as weak or vulnerable.

I can assure you that public opinion in the US would never support the use of that type of force to be used against Iran.. The US public are aware that Iran poses no real threat to them and unless a false flag terrorist operation is committed in the US and the Iranians are blamed for it I don't believe for a single second that the US public would ever want a war with Iran.. I think the lies about Iraqi WMD's to start the Iraq war will make Americans be against such an attack for fear of repeating it..

So if the US does attack Iran, it will be drawn into a war that brings down whichever government launches it.. Be it Obama or someone else... And if it ever uses nuclear weapons.. Well the US population would also be against it.. And the repercussions for it will be horrendous..

That said, I hope we never find out who is right.

Amen to that..

Edited by Adonis Vlahos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adonis,

As I said, I don't have time right now to do the proper research. I don't have Hillary's intelligence briefings, but I know she would not make a claim like she did without those intelligence briefings.

I will come up with some stuff later through correct research. I want to find more recent things than the 2007 report I linked above, but so as not to leave you without an answer, here is a quote from that report:

What terrorist groups are linked to Iran?

U.S. officials say Iran mostly backs Islamist groups, including the Lebanese Shiite militants of Hezbollah (which Iran helped found in the 1980s) and such Palestinian terrorist groups as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. A few months after Hamas won the Palestinian Authority (PA) elections in early 2006, Iran pledged $50 million to the near-bankrupt PA. The United States, among other nations, has cut off aid to the PA because of Hamas’ terrorist ties.

Iran is suspected of encouraging Hezbollah’s July 2006 attack on Israel to deflect international attention from its nuclear weapons program. Iran was also reportedly involved in a Hezbollah-linked January 2002 attempt to smuggle a boatload of arms to the PA. Some reports also suggest that Iran’s interference in Iraq has included funding, safe transit, and arms to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Adonis has the consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran right, but we're either going to find out by mid-October or the whole thing will probably be put off a year. It has to do with the U.S. elections. I'm most concerned about September. After that Israel risks pissing off Americans generally for they want to take other considerations into the voting booth.

--Brant

edit: There will be a danger spike for five weeks following the elections.

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adonis,

As I said, I don't have time right now to do the proper research. I don't have Hillary's intelligence briefings, but I know she would not make a claim like she did without those intelligence briefings.

Right.. So the US government would never ever make a claim to justify a war with another country with bogus evidence and lies right? Right?

Now to address the report..

U.S. officials say Iran mostly backs Islamist groups, including the Lebanese Shiite militants of Hezbollah (which Iran helped found in the 1980s) and such Palestinian terrorist groups as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. A few months after Hamas won the Palestinian Authority (PA) elections in early 2006, Iran pledged $50 million to the near-bankrupt PA. The United States, among other nations, has cut off aid to the PA because of Hamas’ terrorist ties.

Yes, Iran supports Hezbollah. That's not in question.. Iran also started sending money through to the PA after the US cut off funding.. But Iran wasn't the only country to send money.. So did a number of other nations.. But does Iran supply Hamas with rockets? I'm not sure.. Perhaps.. That could be part of the reason that Hamas no longer uses suicide bombers and instead uses rockets.. They are able to fight now with better technologies. I'm not grieving over that, as you're well aware I'm against suicide bombing because I believe it's forbidden in Islam.. Rocketing is not and providing that Hamas tries as much as possible to avoid casualties of unarmed Israelis I'm more than supportive of them fighting back using those rockets..

It's funny though, people get upset at Hamas for using rockets to fight the occupation of their land, and also when they used suicide bombings.. So is it the method of fighting that Hamas uses to resist the occupation of Palestinian land that you dislike or the fact that they resist at all? Because, if it's the inaccurate rockets you dislike, allow them to bring in guided missile systems to ensure that the Israeli military is hit most and innocent civilians are less likely to be hurt..

However, if you just don't want them to resist the occupation of their land then well.. What does that say about you? Do you somehow have the right to resist the occupation of your land but the Palestinians don't? What makes you more human than them?

Iran is suspected of encouraging Hezbollah’s July 2006 attack on Israel to deflect international attention from its nuclear weapons program. Iran was also reportedly involved in a Hezbollah-linked January 2002 attempt to smuggle a boatload of arms to the PA. Some reports also suggest that Iran’s interference in Iraq has included funding, safe transit, and arms to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces.

Are you serious? Hezbollah didn't attack Israel in 2006, they launched operations to take Israeli soldiers that were on their land as prisoners to negotiate prisoner swaps as they'd done numerous times with the Israelis.. This has been the only method they had at their disposal to liberate the thousands of Lebanese men, women and children held in Israeli prisons without charge or trial, some of which have been held there since 1982.

The fact is that Israel had been planning for this war for more than a year in advance of the taking of Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah and this was admitted by Olmert and others. Then the Israelis just used it as an excuse to launch their war against Hezbollah and to try and finally get rid of them over a 3 week period. This backfired and the Israelis not only lost the war, but the myth of the invincibility of the Israeli war machine was also destroyed..

Also, to assert that Muqtada Al Sadr's forces are supported and supplied by Iran is not correct.. Yes, they may have some limited support by Iranian individuals but they certainly don't have any proper support.. If they did, you'd see them armed the same way that Hezbollah is with very advanced weaponry.. But they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Adonis has the consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran right, but we're either going to find out by mid-October or the whole thing will probably be put off a year. It has to do with the U.S. elections. I'm most concerned about September. After that Israel risks pissing off Americans generally for they want to take other considerations into the voting booth.

--Brant

Tell us what would the consequences of such an attack be then? And why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adonis,

See what you are doing?

Pointing fingers and yelling.

That report you find faulty is based on USA intelligence. After Iraq, they are being extra-careful. Whether you take that stuff seriously or not, I assure you that the USA government and military do take it seriously.

If your discourse is the same as what is going on in Iran, I expect this thing to go boom. And no one will be able to stop it from doing so.

That's my analysis.

A different approach is needed. And it's needed fast. Time is running out.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adonis,

See what you are doing?

Pointing fingers and yelling.

That report you find faulty is based on USA intelligence. After Iraq, they are being extra-careful. Whether you take that stuff seriously or not, I assure you that the USA government and military do take it seriously.

If your discourse is the same as what is going on in Iran, I expect this thing to go boom. And no one will be able to stop it from doing so.

That's my analysis.

A different approach is needed. And it's needed fast. Time is running out.

Michael

I'm not pointing fingers and yelling at all Michael..

The report is faulty because it only makes assertions that it hasn't backed up with evidence.. The US intelligence establishment also hasn't backed it up with evidence so you'll have to forgive me if I don't believe the lives of millions more people in the Middle East in addition to that of US troops are worth risking over something which hasn't been proven..

You also didn't answer the points that I made previously.. Where I stated that Iranians had access to Chemical and Biological weapons and not once used them even whilst they were being used against Iran by US backed Iraq, nor did they give them to their proxies to use against Isreal.. So what are you basing the assertion that Iran would give nuclear weapons to its proxies on exactly? I mean other than the fear mongering right?

There's still absolutely no justification to attack Iran's nuclear facilities..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The report is faulty because it only makes assertions that it hasn't backed up with evidence..

Adonis,

Of course it is. That think tank is not in the habit of issuing reports without having sourced them.

However, it did not give the sources, so I imagine many of them were classified.

That's why I said I need to research this more.

I only have time right now for these drive-by posts. I am coming on and, after a few minutes, going back to the thing I am working on.

This is a topic that deserves more attention than that.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Adonis has the consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran right, but we're either going to find out by mid-October or the whole thing will probably be put off a year. It has to do with the U.S. elections. I'm most concerned about September. After that Israel risks pissing off Americans generally for they want to take other considerations into the voting booth.

--Brant

Tell us what would the consequences of such an attack be then? And why?

I wrote a detailed answer to your question, Adonis, but the lack of stability in OL's platform caused me to lose the whole thing and I'm not going to rewrite it.

I did answer this question in less detail earlier, but don't recall the thread. I do think the worse case consequences could be even worse than what you have posited, but not likely and not as dramatic.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The report is faulty because it only makes assertions that it hasn't backed up with evidence..

Adonis,

Of course it is. That think tank is not in the habit of issuing reports without having sourced them.

However, it did not give the sources, so I imagine many of them were classified.

That's why I said I need to research this more.

I only have time right now for these drive-by posts. I am coming on and, after a few minutes, going back to the thing I am working on.

This is a topic that deserves more attention than that.

Michael

Okay sure, I understand you're quite busy and am sure you'll write something more detailed soon.

But in the mean time, I just thought I'd let you know that when I was in Syria last year, I saw Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie visit the suburb where I lived with the UNHCR.. Immediately I started yelling out 'The adopters are coming! The adopters are coming!' While ushering poor Iraqi refugee children into nearby basements to safety from the greedy, over adopting claws of Hollywood couples..

Anyway, back to the topic..

I don't trust a word the CFR says, they're war mongers who financially benefit off of war and are trying to establish a One World Government..

I wrote a detailed answer to your question, Adonis, but the lack of stability in OL's platform caused me to lose the whole thing and I'm not going to rewrite it.

I did answer this question in less detail earlier, but don't recall the thread. I do think the worse case consequences could be even worse than what you have posited, but not likely and not as dramatic.

--Brant

I had a problem finding it, if you recall which one please let me know.. That instability issue is annoying.. I also have that with my Firefox too, so sometimes I write my responses in a blank gmail mail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The report is faulty because it only makes assertions that it hasn't backed up with evidence..

Adonis,

Of course it is. That think tank is not in the habit of issuing reports without having sourced them.

However, it did not give the sources, so I imagine many of them were classified.

That's why I said I need to research this more.

I only have time right now for these drive-by posts. I am coming on and, after a few minutes, going back to the thing I am working on.

This is a topic that deserves more attention than that.

Michael

Okay sure, I understand you're quite busy and am sure you'll write something more detailed soon.

But in the mean time, I just thought I'd let you know that when I was in Syria last year, I saw Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie visit the suburb where I lived with the UNHCR.. Immediately I started yelling out 'The adopters are coming! The adopters are coming!' While ushering poor Iraqi refugee children into nearby basements to safety from the greedy, over adopting claws of Hollywood couples..

Anyway, back to the topic..

I don't trust a word the CFR says, they're war mongers who financially benefit off of war and are trying to establish a One World Government..

I wrote a detailed answer to your question, Adonis, but the lack of stability in OL's platform caused me to lose the whole thing and I'm not going to rewrite it.

I did answer this question in less detail earlier, but don't recall the thread. I do think the worse case consequences could be even worse than what you have posited, but not likely and not as dramatic.

--Brant

I had a problem finding it, if you recall which one please let me know.. That instability issue is annoying.. I also have that with my Firefox too, so sometimes I write my responses in a blank gmail mail.

If Iran effectively blocks the Strait of Hormuz for a few months the highest functioning world economies will collectively fall into depression for lack of enough relatively cheap oil.

If Hezbollah fires many missiles into Israel, Israel will probably invade southern Lebanon and with much more effective force than last time.

There won't be any use of nukes and the Middle East won't go up in flames and Syria will stay out. For going up in flames think India and Pakistan.

The U.S. cannot effectively put troops on the ground in Iran to assess the consequences of any bombing--said bombing will leave little collateral damage. It is doubtful that the U.S. will itself join in the bombing, but likely that three carriers will launch hundreds of planes over the Persian Gulf to spike effective Iranian retaliation there. This may or may not work.

The periods of greatest likelihood of an Israeli strike will be from mid-Sept. to mid-Oct. referencing the U.S. elections and from middle Nov. to middle Dec. referencing same. After that Israel might consider that it has the luxury of another year. One thing hurrying Israel along is Saudi cooperation now doesn't mean same a year from now.

Iran will eventually be ruled by its military, as the Mullahs politically weaken over time, regardless of any of this. The military won't care about bringing on Armageddon for the purposes of furthering Islam generally in this world.

There will always be unintended consequences.

--Brant

sorry for this hodgepodge; it's all I have time for, but I did get a little more elaborate

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Iran effectively blocks the Strait of Hormuz for a few months the highest functioning world economies will collectively fall into depression for lack of enough relatively cheap oil.

Yes, agreed.

If Hezbollah fires many missiles into Israel, Israel will probably invade southern Lebanon and with much more effective force than last time.

See, this is an assumption that I disagree with, it assumes that Israel's tactics would have developed further over the past 4 years whereas but doesn't really consider that Hezbollah's would have too, as a guerrilla force, Hezbollah's tactics are constantly changing and adapting to new threats. Their weapons and communications systems are also being upgraded too.

There won't be any use of nukes and the Middle East won't go up in flames and Syria will stay out. For going up in flames think India and Pakistan.

By going up in flames, I don't mean just by nuclear weapons.. I mean the region will become a war zone and it won't be limited to Iran.. Iraq will be drawn in, as will Syria because in an attempt to stop arms and fighters pouring into Lebanon, Israel will attack Syria.

The U.S. cannot effectively put troops on the ground in Iran to assess the consequences of any bombing--said bombing will leave little collateral damage. It is doubtful that the U.S. will itself join in the bombing, but likely that three carriers will launch hundreds of planes over the Persian Gulf to spike effective Iranian retaliation there. This may or may not work.

Are you kidding? Little collateral damage? If Israel doesn't attack within the next few days the 'collateral damage' will be similar to that of Chernobyl. And even if they do attack beforehand, do you think it will just stop there? Iran will respond with force as their country would have just been bombed.

The periods of greatest likelihood of an Israeli strike will be from mid-Sept. to mid-Oct. referencing the U.S. elections and from middle Nov. to middle Dec. referencing same. After that Israel might consider that it has the luxury of another year. One thing hurrying Israel along is Saudi cooperation now doesn't mean same a year from now.

It would be too late by then.

Iran will eventually be ruled by its military, as the Mullahs politically weaken over time, regardless of any of this. The military won't care about bringing on Armageddon for the purposes of furthering Islam generally in this world.

I doubt this also.. The Iranians would never accept this.

There will always be unintended consequences.

Of course

sorry for this hodgepodge; it's all I have time for, but I did get a little more elaborate

No no, I appreciate your comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now