Page 1 of 3

The Iran Question

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:14 pm
by EAS_Intrepid
The Iran Question

Now, where the tensions between Iran and the western allied states rising, the question can be stated about how far Iran will go and if it would be wise to maintain a armed forces stationing in Iran's geographic proximity.

Until now, Iran's President Ahmadinedjad wanted to eradicate Israel, neglected the existence of the holocaust and demanded, that Germany and Austria should give a little of their territory to relocate Israel to Europe. Furthermore he rejected any attempts to stop Iran's nuclear program, that might lead (or even already leads) to a Nuclear Weapon in the hands of fundamentalists that do not seem to care about their nation's diplomatic position in the world.
Additionally Iran conducted a forces build-up and tried to buy Soviet-style tanks and weaponry.
"These are the facts..." (A Few Good Men)

Then there is the question about how far can we, the Western Allies: Germany, France, Great Britain and finally the United States of America, go in order to safe the near East East from becoming the hottest political spot on Earth.

Please do not only say "Bomb them!". Think about other possibilities, because a military strike would be, well, risky for the USA, as they would carry the major engagements in a war against a regional power. Finally, the military solution is just another question, that should be discussed, when everything else failed.

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:03 pm
by rodglas
Western diplomatic pressure is not going to be the answer to the Iran question. The best we can hope to do is isolate Iran from potential allies which is basically been the policy of the US for the past 20 odd years.

As far as I know Iran has no major regional allies, Russia sells them gear but wouldn't involve themselves in a major war, certainly not with the US. Iraq recently fought a coslty War with Iran so even if they were not occupied by the coalistion they would still be out. Most of the Arabian Pennisula States are westren Allies.

Syria is a possible friend to Iran but they are more diplomatically inclined and have participated in the Mid East peace process on occation.

How do we isolate Iran? Much of the anti-western hatred is predicated on the notion that we "the West" are the great Satan. Those countries that support the US the most, are those which have benifited most from there relationship, that is the population as a whole.

Saudi Arabia does not fit that profile because the population does not benefit as much as the ruling family. The Saud family however does freatly support the US.

If the US can encourage the leader of all oil rich countries to "Share the wealth" then we may then everyone will have a stake in protecting the status quo.

The people of Iran would hopeful see the benefit of Western friendship and seek real political change.

Iran would need massive amounts of money and support in order to be a serious threat to the region. Anf I seriously doubt that they would be foolish enough to try to nuke Israel or anyone else due to the only effective means of nuclear defence - Mutually assured destruction.

The biggest single threat from Iran having a nuclear weapon is the possiblity of delivering it to a US or other costal city via freighter.
Such a weapon could be set off before being discovered and do great damage. The lielyhood of an interior city being attacked is small as "suitcase" nukes are difficult to build and would likely be detected if US security is doing its job.


The last option is indead war.
With the US and her closest allie involved in major actions in Iraq and Afganistan, not to mention commitments around the world the Allies are streched pretty thin. And if they do have THE BOMB there is no telling how they might use it if invaded. It is the same problem with North Korea.

Rod.

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:27 pm
by Neil
Good old fashioned "Black" Ops. SAS, Delta and CIA Wet Teams carry out a barrowload of political assassinations in Iran. Insert a pro-Western ruler here.

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:29 pm
by EAS_Intrepid
The Shah-Regime from the 60s.

Problem: CIA supported governments tend to disregard human rights treaties -> South America

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:33 pm
by EAS_Intrepid
@rod. thanks for the post. a good example of what I meant with "other possbilities"

@Neil: Good point to think about. Because, "how far can we go."
At first a good solution to take it out the President and then to install a pro-western government.
Problem: CIA supported governments tend to disregard human rights treaties -> South America and the Iran Shah-regime of the 60s. There was an islamic revolution.

others?

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:05 pm
by odyssey
Whatever actions or inactions that are suggested that can be taken against Iran, you are going run up against a road block full of reisistances and consequences from many quarters. Though most if not all civilized and rational people would agree... Tactical nukes in the hands of fundamentalist Mullas in the most politically unstable region on earth.. who supports and funds terrorists MUST NOT ALLOW TO HAPPEN.

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 8:54 pm
by blindeye01
The question is how much can the US do as is. It can bomb Iran, a messy solution considering the possibility of the Iranians hiding their operation, invasion would work however the troop strength in Iraq is too low let alone the strength needed to go to Iran. The US has used all the sanctions it can do, and the IAEA has failed on the nuclear policy.

So, what are we left with. The solution I heard and that makes sense is that it is time for Russia, China, and India to step up and use their significant clout to end this through aggressive diplomacy. They have mostly turned a blind eye (haha,a pun!) to the middle east affairs with the US especially involved. But if they did turn the heat up on Iran they would have little recourse but to back down.

Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 5:50 am
by Zered003
With actions by the UN always being a laugh. I don't see America being able to take the lead in military strength against Iran. I do think that Garmany, Russia, China, and India could do something about it before it turns to war.
Now if it end up in war. I think international forces should lead the way. The only country that I would say, after recent events and attitudes, that would not do anything to help in this string of events is France. I just hope that the world is able to come together and acually face this problem together before it is to late.

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:30 am
by rodglas
Not true the UN has not alway been a laugh and has in actual fact been quite a useful forum and has had a major impact in several areas that do not always include warfare.

It has really own been in the last decade or so that the UN has grown somewhat ineffectual in its role as the world's peacekeeper. Laregly do to the fact that the United States and other govrenments have decided to stop taking the UN seriously.

I do agree that the French do seem to be a little self motivated and inward looking. I fully believe that France stayed out of the US's coalition only because they had a vested interest in the Saddam Regime not out of some noble objections.

The only nation that has the clout in todays world to lead this sort of war is the US. AS the most powerful nation on the planet no one else could do the job. Putting Canada, UK or Germany in charge of a peace mission is one thing but a war would require the logistical expertise and political power of the US.

Rod.

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:29 pm
by Twitch
Mark my words- when the iran nuker situation gets far enough along the Israelis will take that f#@ker off the map like they did Hussein's. They don't dick arond and they don't care what talking head politicians outside Israel think.

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:29 pm
by Numbazix
^Absoulutely right, Twitch.

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 7:43 pm
by rodglas
Irans program is more spread out then the Iraqi program, also it pushes the range of Israels attack fighters as they do not have long range missiles that could reach Iran.

Israel would have to fly over potentially hostile countries to strike Iran or fly around them.

Israel striking Iran would quite a logistical headache.

Rod.

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:34 am
by EAS_Intrepid
I agree with Rodglas: Iran learned Hussein's lesson: Don't place allof the Labs in one place.
They need more fighters than they did twentyfive years ago, simply because Iran's labs are spread all over the country...
They will loose Pilots and F-16s; Irans AA guns and Ground-to-Air missiles are far better than Saddams.

However, for the Israelian F-16 it should not be a problem to reach Iran in matters of distance, but the question how to get out again would be difficult and the Israelis would just do that, what Iran is waiting for: an aggressive action!
Then Iran would strike back with its al-Shahab missile, that can reach Tel-Aviv/Jaffa and so any other given target in Israel, including the Israelian nukes in the Negev desert.

IF THERE IS NO OTHER WAY, a NATO lead military assault would be necessary, but for now, we should negotiate with Iran and meanwhile send CIA, BND (German Foreign Intelligence) and the French Military Intelligence to Iran to eliminate the lack of information concerning Iran's reactors and labs.

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:12 am
by Numbazix
I would imagine that either ship launched or submarine launched TLAM's would take care of the priority targets in the most efficient manner.

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:26 am
by EAS_Intrepid
Chiraq just announced, that if France is threatened by a country, France will retailiate with unconventional force...

The Israelis just bought 40 bunker penetrators from the US.