What is the reason, for a war against Iran ?

[Catfish]

Following the CIA and authoritative reports by other international services, the iranian programme for nuclear weapons is inexistent, or at least not really developed:


- not only because there was not much done before, but a lot of installations have mysteriously blown up in the last months - accidentally, of course.
Now, what's that:
lol
With or without this programme and with or without Israel, disregarding the Dollar lead currency and trying to sell their oil in other currencies will most certainly mean war between the US and Iran. Could this be the real reason ?

It is just that the by-force inthronized Shah became so unpopular back then, that even a man like Khomeini could become head of that state - this would have been impossible, before or without the tortures and atrocities of Shah Mr. Pahlewi. Even now a lot of iranians are against their own leadership.

And this is imho why a military strike or war will only make things worse, this by all means has to be a secret services procedure, but as rumours are even the israelian government has turned away from its much more effective Mossad, now killing lots of innocent people with military strikes instead of pinpoint action.

Don't get me wrong, i am all with Israel in that matter, but the people of Iran are not per se Israel-haters, they have an entirely different ethnicity and belief. Muslims are the majority (thanks Osmium Steel !), but the non-official and non-governmental muslims there, have nothing against Israel or the Jews.
Certainly, do not underestimate the russian and arabian influence, on Iran's "religious" leaders - a war with Iran could spark another World war.

[Catfish]

Hello Osmium, i put your answer here, since i changed the other thread and made a new one here:

Originally Posted by Osmium Steele

I'm assuming you mean Iran is not majority arab. It certainly IS majority muslim. 90% muslim in fact. Now, if you don't consider Shia to be "real" Islam, that's another matter.

SOURCE

As to the rest, I don't disagree. My mother and both sisters are/were Bahai'i. I grew up around the faith and the many Iranian ex-pats involved in the faith here in the states.

In general, Iranians over 60 and under 30 have no ill will toward the US. Quite the contrary.

[Oberon]

I'd say it was a bit of a stretch to say that a war with Iran could cause a World War. Certainly the PRC and Russia (nearly wrote USSR there...freudian slip perhaps?) would look to protect their interests in the region (geo-political in Russias case and Oil in the PRCs) however I do not think that they would intervene directly against a US or Israeli based assault, however it is not too much of a stretch to imagine that lots of S-300s will suddenly find their way across the Caspian Sea.
Any war against Iran would be purely an air and naval war.
The naval war would be against lateral targets (suicide boats) and mines. The anti-submarine war would not take long to complete, in fact the Kilos will probably be sunk in port, likewise most of Irans actual naval fleet will soon find itself in pieces. However, merchants flying false flags dropping mines...a lot harder to find and kill and Midget subs could be a nuisance.
The rest of the naval war would primarily consist of lobbing TLAMs into the country.
The air war would be a lot more of a logistical nightmare, Israel has one shot before diplomatic pressures force Irans neighbours (in particular Saudi Arabia and Iraq) to shut their airspace. After that Israel is stuck either using Ballistic missiles or violating said airspace, and the longer it does the latter the more heat it gets from the international community.
Israel is no stranger to going it alone, and it's no stranger to doing something that will be unpopular in international opinion if it secures Israels borders and keeps it secure. However, its weakest link is the US, if it loses support from the US, the hungry wolves around it will be sure to start drawing up plans, I'm looking at Egypt here, since Syria is so screwed it can't even invade itself at the moment let alone the Golan Heights.
So any Israeli 'war' on Iran would be a strictly one or two night affair, and it would probably just delay the nuclear program rather than destroy it...to destroy it Israel would need to employ the Samson option, which no-one in Tel Aviv really wants to do because it would damage Israel more than it would Iran.

If the US follows Israel with strikes then the event drags out a bit more, the US has the logistical power and the airbases to attrition Irans airpower into nothing and then set about destroying every single nuclear facility that it knows of, as well as every single nuclear scientist it knows the location of. However, even then it may not be enough to utterly destroy the program but just to set it back by a matter of at most a decade.

The Russians and Chinese will both bluster in the UN and try to pass stuff in the General Assembly, but just about everything that comes out of the General Assembly isn't worth the paper its written on in terms of actual strength, what matters is what comes out of the Security Council, and the US can veto anything that the Russians and Chinese stir up in there.
I would be extremely surprised if the Russians actually got involved though, because there will not be a ground invasion, not unless Washington is feeling particularly suicidal. As Condie famously said once "Iran is not Iraq", and any ground war in Iran would sink any Presidents campaign for re-election, not to mention cause massive international blowback.
There might be enforced 'No-Fly Zones' like Iraq, but I think that it's quite unlikely, more likely that they'll just go in, blow up as much stuff as they can as quickly as they can and then get out.

It'll be quite lucrative for Russia and China though, because they will get the contracts to rebuild the Iranian Navy, Airforce and Army and they will get the political prestige of being able to condemn the US and/or Israel for the attack, thus giving them more support from anti-US Middle Eastern and African nations (which means more nice trade contracts, military purchases, and oil).

Is a nuclear armed Iran a problem?
That depends entirely on your point of view of the stability and mental viewpoint of the Iranian leadership, and I don't just mean Dinnerjacket, I mean the Ayatollah as well.
Would a nuclear weapon be used in a jihadist strike?

Well, wouldn't you? If you wanted to strike a major blow to your enemy in a manner in which they would not be able to recover for at least a decade (if not longer) and the cost would be the possible destruction of some of your people (a good portion of whom probably hate you anyway) or quite possibly just some airstrikes (depending upon whether the moral high ground is taken) then what a perfect idea a nuclear strike would be.
Furthermore, it would just deepen the divide between Muslims and other people in the fallout (literally) of the attack, thus creating the fertile grounds for more angry disaffected Muslims to join extremist cells and building up to an all out Holy war.

Of course, given the reliability of Iranian weapons, you'd need at least ten per target in order to stand a chance of hitting it, and you'd probably want to pick a target that's not expecting it...like Europe...rather than one who is and is armed with more ABMs than Moscow...like Israel.

That's what I would do anyway, if I were in Irans shoes and wanted to hit the west. But I'm not, and who knows what goes through the mind of Dinnerjacket and the Ayatollah.

[Catfish]

Some good points

I also think an invasion of any kind would not happen, but it will be a case of "shooting projectiles into a continent and call this a war", as J. Conrad would say.

But i do not mean the tactical process of strikes, i would like to hear of the official reason why such a strike should be made - ?

Certainly Israel could do it alone, and if it has some vital inside information indicating a real threat from Iran, it will. I doubt this threat to be real, but then i certainly do not know. Terrorists, well, we have seen it is not easy to kill certain terrorists from above with drones, apart from collateral damage also backfiring in the worldwide media and international perception. Special teams are much moe effective, but they require intelligence, and people knowing what they are doing. Seems a lot of nations have abandoned the infiltration concept for military strikes featuring expensive technological crutches - not entirely, but a (bad) trend.

The US are certainly able as well, but - why ? If the threat of weapons of mass extinction do not exist, and the US does not intend to invade Iran and get the oil wells, what is the reason ? Official, and real ?

Threats from Ahmadinejad like closing the strait of Hormuz ?
How would he do it ? Maybe he could block some civilian tankers and merchants for a day, but even then it would hurt Iran more than anyone else. And come on, no one takes that serious ?

Or does he want to sell oil not in dollar currency ? This would destabilize the market, the US has always seen to provide the lead currency (dollars), and Iran selling its oil in Euro, Yen or Rubel would take that monopoly away, badly damaging (US) economics, but not only the US of course.
But even then, Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollas do NOT threaten to sell their oil other than in dollars. All the threats I myself have seen have not come from Iran. Ahmadinnerjacket is boasting as always but who gives a ... Fox News lies, as usual, but even they have no convincing proposal.

The media are desparately trying to build up a massive hype to "counter this Iran threat", but what threat can this be ?

What's the real deal about the US vs. Iran war hype all the time ?

[Oberon]

The reasons are, I suspect, geopolitical. Iran has the potential to become a threat in the region within the next five years, be it through military or economical reasons. Nipping that threat in the bud will help to maintain Western influence in the area, well...that's in the best case scenario.

There's also the possibility that Iran itself is fabricating the state of its nuclear program, daring Israel and the West to hit it so that it can claim greater prestige for itself as the 'wounded victim', the 'innocent party' in the attack. Particularly if, after the attack, the IAEA is allowed to look at the sites and find that there's nothing there except 'baby milk factories'.

It's a pretty low blow, but when your enemy has superior firepower, then you have to focus on thinking outside the box in ways to disgrace your enemy, to trick them into falling into traps that you've prepared for them.

[mapuc]

Catfish, I've been thinking the same, who's interest is it, to press USA and Iran into a war?

Is it our media(third power)?

I my self do, after reading, seeing and listening to news, believe Iran is working on to get nuclear weapon itself.

If you take a tour on youtube, you will find that some of the reason is oil. USA wants to have control over the oil in middle east. First Iraq, then Iran and later on SA( these "facts" are for me nothing but conspiracy)

Markus

[the_tyrant]

I have to pitch in here:

China and Iran is fundamentally ideologically incompatible.

No problems with China, after all, China is "Communist" while its economical policies are more capitalist than actual "Capitalist" countries. Chinese people know and accept (or even like) this doublespeak.

Iran however, might very well object to the Chinese Ideology. Or as I will quote here: "The people have not been raped enough by the 'ideologies' to learn to enjoy the lies and hypocracy."

Why would this prove to be a problem?

Islam and communism has always had conflicts. Now in the Chinese textbooks, Islams is being attacked from all angles. Theocracies like Iran are being portrayed as "Backward" and "Ridiculous".

Add the new Chinese anti religion campaign, and I can just see the conflict sparking here.

Chinese people know that it is just talk, it is just for the government to save face. The amount of religious Chinese people increase with every passing day, and as long as the religious organizations do not cause trouble, the government never does anything.

Now the thing is, Iran is a heavily ideologically motivated nation. I doubt they would turn a blind eye and ignore this. Even if their secular leadership is willing to, their religious leadership is probably not willing to ignore this. There has been minor conflicts caused by this in the past, but nothing major yet.

Iranians are very proud (as of now), they are probably not willing to accept a compromise with China. After all, Pakistan had a rocky relationship with China before a string of total military defeats to India.

In conclusion, Iran might work with China now. But I really do not expect a long term alliance or relationship. The moment Israel and the US stop being a problem with Iran, I would bet on the likelihood of conflict between Iran and China.

[Platapus]

Why a war with Iran?

Well the Military Industrial Complex needs a "boogieman" in order to get funding. Russia is getting old. It is tougher to stir up scary things about China as they are just too busy making money.

North Korea has a big army, impossible terrain, and even though they could never win, they could cause a lot of damage to countries we like lose-lose situation.

Who else can we use to instill fear??? AQ? They are fragmented and besides there is no real money in fighting non-conventional non-state actors. We need carriers, submarines, bombers, and missiles $$$$ that's where the real profit is.

Remember, we are facing Draconian cuts to the military. We desperately need a circumstance where congress can say "well, sure we intended to cut the military as a means of bringing spending down... but after xxx we (ahem) (cue straight face) 'have no choice' but to plus up military spending."

So who don't we like who is surrounded by other countries we either don't like or don't like all that much?

And it has to be a country with a culture different from ours and one where we don't have a lot of citizens (voting significant numbers) from that culture???

And just to play it safe, it really should be a country that does not have the ability to directly attack the US proper.

It should also be a country that most citizens don't know much about so they will rely on the media for their propa... uh I mean information.

So why a war with Iran?

Why not? It is custom made for our purposes.

Yeah, I am THAT cynical about our foreign policy.

[Skybird]

That the IAEA - not really a friend of US policies, since some months is warning openly of a nuclear weapons program, and effectively has U-turned on its former polciies especially under Al-Baradei, seems to habe taken no note of?!

That the CIA has been ordered in 2002 and 2003 to produce the "evidence" needed by the Bush administration to giove an excuse for the Iraq war, and got terribly burned over its staged claims of mobile bio-weapon labs, Anthrax production and the Iraqi bomb program still going on - that this CIA now may be very shy and desperately tries to avoid making the same mistake again, seems to be an unreasionable thought now?

The the IAEA openly has objected the CIA claim, is of no interest?

The the same CIA that took orders by Bush to produce the wanted "evidence" may also accept orders by Obama to produce the wanted absenc e of evidence, is a far-fetched thought?

That Obama wants to keep pressure on Israel to discourage them from stirking at least before the US elections, and that Obama in general is very uncomfortable over going to war with Iran, must not be mentioned?

That Iran has been monitored and reported since some years now to move key sites of its research and production program deep into mopuintaisn and thus can give up the open, more vulenrable sites it used before, is invalid a finding now?

That Iran is developing carrier systems and fuses for nuclear bombs (and only for these), is meaningless?

That Iran has a completely understandable interest, from its perspective, to go after the bomb, is sneaking to the point from where to go into the final production stage so to make reaction time for the West as short as possible, and that both the current regime as well as all rivals of Amadinjadh - even the hilariously so-called "moderates" that the West loves so much - have publicly announced to continue the program, mjst not be taken serious?

That the risks of a nuzclear arms race b etween Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, is incalculatable, takes place in a totally instabile region driven by centuries-old hostilities and religious hysteria , must not worry thre world?

Proliferation has meanwhile become a word of the past, not having meaning anymore?

The CIA was not to be trusted in the past. It was not to be trusted in 2003. But now, when it claims something that fits a personal opinion and fulfills the hiunger for wishful thinking on the matter of peace and freedom - then it suddenly is trustworthy again?

Well.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Why a war with Iran?

Well the Military Industrial Complex needs a "boogieman" in order to get funding. Russia is getting old. It is tougher to stir up scary things about China as they are just too busy making money.

North Korea has a big army, impossible terrain, and even though they could never win, they could cause a lot of damage to countries we like lose-lose situation.

Who else can we use to instill fear??? AQ? They are fragmented and besides there is no real money in fighting non-conventional non-state actors. We need carriers, submarines, bombers, and missiles $$$$ that's where the real profit is.

Remember, we are facing Draconian cuts to the military. We desperately need a circumstance where congress can say "well, sure we intended to cut the military as a means of bringing spending down... but after xxx we (ahem) (cue straight face) 'have no choice' but to plus up military spending."

So who don't we like who is surrounded by other countries we either don't like or don't like all that much?

And it has to be a country with a culture different from ours and one where we don't have a lot of citizens (voting significant numbers) from that culture???

And just to play it safe, it really should be a country that does not have the ability to directly attack the US proper.

It should also be a country that most citizens don't know much about so they will rely on the media for their propa... uh I mean information.

So why a war with Iran?

Why not? It is custom made for our purposes.

Yeah, I am THAT cynical about our foreign policy.

I must say that I completely agree with what you said.

[Hinrich Schwab]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

I have to pitch in here:

China and Iran is fundamentally ideologically incompatible.

No problems with China, after all, China is "Communist" while its economical policies are more capitalist than actual "Capitalist" countries. Chinese people know and accept (or even like) this doublespeak.

Iran however, might very well object to the Chinese Ideology. Or as I will quote here: "The people have not been raped enough by the 'ideologies' to learn to enjoy the lies and hypocracy."

Why would this prove to be a problem?

Islam and communism has always had conflicts. Now in the Chinese textbooks, Islams is being attacked from all angles. Theocracies like Iran are being portrayed as "Backward" and "Ridiculous".

Add the new Chinese anti religion campaign, and I can just see the conflict sparking here.

Chinese people know that it is just talk, it is just for the government to save face. The amount of religious Chinese people increase with every passing day, and as long as the religious organizations do not cause trouble, the government never does anything.

Now the thing is, Iran is a heavily ideologically motivated nation. I doubt they would turn a blind eye and ignore this. Even if their secular leadership is willing to, their religious leadership is probably not willing to ignore this. There has been minor conflicts caused by this in the past, but nothing major yet.

Iranians are very proud (as of now), they are probably not willing to accept a compromise with China. After all, Pakistan had a rocky relationship with China before a string of total military defeats to India.

In conclusion, Iran might work with China now. But I really do not expect a long term alliance or relationship. The moment Israel and the US stop being a problem with Iran, I would bet on the likelihood of conflict between Iran and China.

I agree with this and want to add a little bit. Since Russia is in this mix, as well, one has to consider its position. Russia is still smarting from the end of the Cold War. Its relations with China, despite and pretense, are strictly economic. So long as China is willing to purchase Russian military hardware, Russia will be a friend to PRC. Russia will not allow itself to play "second fiddle" to China in any way. If a better opportunity came along for Russia to advance without China, China would be dumped in a heartbeat. The Sino-Soviet Conflict of 1969 is an example of these nations at loggerheads and it wouldn't surprise me if another incident occurred if one felt short-changed by the other. Russia's interest in Iran is strictly geographic; Caspian Sea access. Supporting the nation on the other side of a buffering inland sea is a no-brainer, regardless of any true disagreements with that regime. Any nation that controls Iran will be seen as a threat to Russia for this reason alone.

There is one and only one lynchpin uniting these three very disagreeable allies; disagreement with the United States. The easiest way to deal with Iran is to leave them be and let them and their "allies" chew on each other for a while.

[tater]

Well, they did attack sovereign US territory in 1979 (embassies are just that), taking diplomats hostage (which is a de facto way of saying to are uninterested in ever negotiating a peace). Their creatures in Beruit then killed a couple hundred Americans.

As far as I'm concerned, we should have been at war ever since November, 1979. The fact they are still around to even have a nuke program shows how badly their previous transgressions were dealt with by both US political parties.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Why not? It is custom made for our purposes.

Yeah, I am THAT cynical about our foreign policy.

We don't need all those mental gymnastics, we still owe them for 1979, especially that Ahmadinejad guy who was one of the ringleaders.

[Stealhead]

I think we got them pretty good for 1979 when that US Navy ship accidentally shot down an Iranian Airliner in 1988 killing all 290 people on board.The Islamic Jihad bombing of the Marine Barracks killed 241 Marines and no one was killed in the embassy take over and the Men that died during Eagle Pull died because of poor planning not by Iranian bullets so their deaths I blame on the DOD and we just left their bodies as well Iran made a postage stamp of a burned airman.

So I think death wise we are about even.

Ahmadinejad was in no way involved in the embassy take over in 1979.That misinformation can be explained in the statement by Platapus;

"It should also be a country that most citizens don't know much about so they will rely on the media for their propa... uh I mean information."

With this line of thinking why not start the Civil War again I think we southerners owe you northerners for burning down Atlanta.

The Japanese could say that they owe us the deaths of a few hundred thousand US citizens for the Japanese one killed by fire bombing in 44 and 45.

Such ideas are very poor reasons to go to war in a modern world in particular.How many thousand Iranian and American soldiers must die to satisfy what is owed?

Some kid beat me in a fight when I was 10 years old I must track him down and beat him in hand to hand combat I owe him.

[Catfish]

I do not agree with that the US is owing "them" (Iran) something, for 1979.
Then maybe Argentina also owes the US something for 9/11, 1973 ? Or the Philipines ? Or the Indians ?
This all was generations ago, and people talking about "not to forget history" often (!) only want to stir the pot, for their own revenge.
Because, imho, few have ever really (!) learned from history.

Iran had been built up as a bulwark against communism by the west, its army in the 1970ies was the 4th biggest worldwide, armed by a lot of western nations including Germany b.t.w.. Oil was also important, at that time it was more british BP than US companies, but ...
The main enemy then was communism, the USSR and its influence, not Islam. Against that, there was Israel.

As well the forced inthronization by the west, of Shah (king) Reza Pahlewi, did not go well with the iranian population, especially when he began to kill and torture his own subjects en masse. He was just a very bad dictator, much worse than Saddam Hussein, but if the devil himself was anti-communist the west would have welcomed him.

Which is what i meant with Ayatollah Khomeini would never have stood a chance, if the iranian people would not have been harrassed by its own government before - this was pure despair, and they wanted to get rid of the Shah. They blamed the Shah on those who had inthronized him - the west. Big chance for a religious, or at least anti-western regime.
(This is also what i mean with we have not really learned from history, "we" are still mostly supporting the wrong nations, and the wrong regimes - Libya was the first time done better, but the west was not used to support the people other than militarily, and just overslept the chance of taking influence on a democratic birth of a new republic)

And on the contrary to the "usual revolutions", the one in Iran was a relatively unbloody one - sure the military shot at demonstrants, but instead of running away there were more deomstrants by the minute, filling up the rows without shooting, until the commanders (wisely) decided to retreat to the barracks instead of massacring their own people.

Imho the iranian regime still justifies its own reign by the deeds of the Shah.
A better idea than bombing would be to strategically place persons at the right points, and slowly convince the people of a better way of life. As said before, most Iranians do not have anything against the US, or Israel. Just tell them, convince, also admit faults and failures in the past, generate trust and reliance, exchange students. If this is done properly and sustainably, any unfree regime will overthrow itself in the long run.
This, is certainly not the short fuse solution the media or whoever are wanting us to believe is necessary.


Israel: Other than the US, they face a threat directly and have to act accordingly. But why don't they try to alter the perception of "the arabs" instead of cluster-bombing and assassinating everything thus generating more hate and terrorists ? What is with clandestine operations, changing from within ? Those student exchanges i mentioned, civilian spy jobs (well i take it they do, but to what extent?), or just talk and exchange well-nown persons like actors, spokesman, whatever. Certainly this is not easy, but Israel has shown it is intelligent enough and could - with the political will.

Certainly even for non-religious western young (dumb) folks it is easier to follow those left slogans and beliefs like how "jews kill innocent arabs and drive them from their land", and then settling there. The problem is this is easier to understand for a dumbnut than what lies behind. In the long run, there can only be the chance of education, for the arabian generations to come. So why do not help them and fill the vacuum ? You will storm open doors ..

Even if Israel makes a necessary military strike, why are they content to then hold back and wait for the next threat to happen ? Why don't they actively act bilaterally civilian and militarily, trying to convince ? I understand especially jews do not want to wait, not wanting to act the victim anymore after centuries of pursuit and being conveniently blamed for all by others, but i think they will not succeed if they do not build up a second branch of civilian persuasion.


I still do not know what you mean with China and Iran, as a reason for war between the US, and Iran ? A substitute war, a warning ?
Iran selling oil for Yen ?
Or is it Israel asking the US to help ?
While the cynical idea of the weapons industry needing a new playground and a pretext for funding the military, i am not convinced this alone is the truth ?