Iran will counter 'any threat'

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

How serious do you think Iran is ? Are they capable of being a threat to the awesome array of firepower lying off their coastline ?

Yes.

Modern missiles can do a remarkable ammount of damage to ships - and they have plenty of these, plus mines, and a small handful of reasonable subs. Expect to see some modern types of anti-ship-missiles in their arsenal too that nobody previously had on his list, if it becomes a hot war.

Steering two aircaft carriers through the street of Hormuz, hm? Well, if the US Navy tries that during wartime, it will have two aircraft carriers less and two floating platforms more in it's arsenal.

I was in Iran for months. I can only warn everybody of underestimating their determination to defend themselves. The national sentiments amongst Iranians are extremely high, no matter the social class, no matter the age, no matter what people's opinion on religion and political freedom is. Patriotism runs extremely high in Iran. Maybe, better: probably commandos doing some local infiltration operations. But a land invasion of ground forces - forget it.

The greater threats are not for the US fleet anyway, but for iraq, the Israeli area of the ME and Lebanon, Europe, Afghanistan, oil markets, and a massive shift in poloticial baöances concerning oil trade partners (China, India, and strategically: Russia).

It makes me sad a bit that people here usually do not see the many sides of Persian culture and mentality, and reduce it only to "Ahmadinejadh'S Iran", further enflamed by the witness crisis in the 70s. But it remains a fact for me that amongst all Muslim countries I was in, in Iran I found the most reasonable mindset in many people. The educational standard is higher than in most other muslim countries. Amongst apostates from Islam who live as immigrants in the West, Iranians by far form the greatest group. the clerics and Ahmadinejadh only represent a part of the Iranian population, by far not all. I was not in Afghanistan, but on rare occasions met Afghans in Pakistan (were we also stayed only very short only), which also were very different (and in their way very impressive) from the Arab (and Pakistani) Muslims in other places.

Maybe it will come to a war in the future, and maybe, maybe not, I will support that (currently I oppose it completely). but I will always consider it to be a great tragedy.

If you think I am queer or I contradict my usual anti-Islamic statements, then you haven't understand so far what I am talking about in all those months. That the Ayatollahs now are so strong only illustrates what immense tragedy Islam means for the people and cultures it subjugates. Maybe we will fight them one day, and if I see a need for that, I will demand a far tougher going than politicians in the West are willing to accept, including the Americans, becasue peace and war is a black-white affair for me only. But I will never feel triumphant or excited about it.

[SUBMAN1]

SO this is where Comical Ali went to! I always wondered!

-S

[Hitman]

Probably the only real threat Iran represents is for the world economy. Iran has the power to make the Strait of Ormuz and the entry to the Suez channel very hot, plus it is the fourth oil producer. I would say that skyrocketing oil prices would not be welcomed anywhere, and such a blow to the world economies added to the cost of engaging in a new war (Though hopefully lessons from Irak are learnt and a very different approach is made) would be enough to disuade the US and UK politicians from starting it. The chances of Israel starting it on its own are not to be underestimated, however:hmm:

[Chock]

Well, you can't blame them for a bit of posturing considering they have far more right to be concerned about what is going on in Iraq than most other countries.

Put yourself in their shoes: Imagine a coalition of Arab nations nipping over to Canada and suppressing the place and occupying it. Do you think that the Yanks over the border would just sit quietly and let it happen?

Or to put it another way:

Yes there are indeed some terrorists in Iran, and a lot of religious radicals too, as there are in quite a number of countries where Islam is the main religion. But then again, there are a lot of religious radicals and terrorists in Ireland and many other countries besides, yet you don't see the Syrian Air Force nipping over there and bombing Belfast claiming that they are fighting for peace and a war on terror, and not giving a crap about civilians being hit in 'collateral damage'.

We may not agree with their politics or their religion, but your average everyday Iranian citizen who's going out to work, paying the bills etc, can hardly be blamed for thinking 'Hey, we've got just as much right to have a Nuke as anyone else, especially with an occupying army over the border that thinks we're all a bunch of terrorists'.

An extreme example, I know. But everyone has the right to defend themself. And one man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter. It just depends on your point of view.

But back to the main point of this post: Yes, I think that the Iranians could put up quite a fight. If you relate it to my extreme example, who do you think is going to be more dedicated to such a fight, a US or British soldier who's been sent over to some country he doesn't really know or care about, or someone who is fighting for their homeland and has nothing else to lose?

Chock

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Chock

Well, you can't blame them for a bit of posturing considering they have far more ...

(...)

... about, or someone who is fighting for their homeland and has nothing else to lose?

Chock

Iran is shia Islam. Most Arabs are Sunni Islam. Shia islam in recent years have shown to be a bigger troublemaker. This together with the strengthening of Iran in recent years is the reason why all Gulf states and Saudi Arabai are seriously concerned about them. The Iran-remote-controlled Hezbollah in Lebanon is Iran tool to bring sunni influence in the Palestinian region into trouble - that is the reason why many Sunni politicians remained relatively silent when Israel tried to bomb the hell out of Hezbollah in the last Lebanon war - if successful, Israel would have done them a favour that way. There are some conclusive thoughts that the current battle of the Lebanese army in those camps is an attempt to crack down another raidcal organization, which was supported by Saudi-Arabai and was meant to counter Hezbollah in the region. Since Hezbollah is in the Lebanese government, they tried to use their influence to make officially "neutral" Lebanese army taking care of their rival, whi9ch then would be in the interest of Iran, and Syria, although Syria'S interests again are slightly different and they realized that they cannot afford to let Iran interfere in Lebanon the way it did in the past years, not without this happening at the cost of ongoing future Syrian chances to dominate Lebanon, like it used to do in the past years. All these factions nevertheless are Arabs, while the Iranians are Persians. It is a clash between Sunnis and Shias, Arabs and Persians, Iran and the gulf states, Saudi Arabia, and other sunni states. Compared to that kettle of boiling water, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict gets overestimated time and again. The Palestinian problem is the less important of the two.

Schwierig, hm?

This only to put your remark back into perpective that Iran only is interested in Iraq from a position of self-defence. It's exactly the opposite.

Their attempt to gain nukes, whcih I take as granted, is also a split affair. Ironically, Iran NEEDS alternative energy, since currently it uses too much of the oil it produces for it's own needs, loosing to many incomes from oil it just burns, but does not sell. That way, it cannot push economical develoepemtn like they want and try, their finances and incomes remain too weak. At the same time they have learned by the example of Iraq 2003, that if you are in the way of US policies, you will get accused of developing nukes, and when you reject it, you will be called a liar and get attacked. So you need those damn nukes for real, to prevent being attacked, that way prooving that the accusation is true - you grab for nukes indeed. And finally, nukes are a wonderful tool to gain prestige in the Muslim world, and become a stronger player and be able to act with more determination amongst muslim states, and towards the world as well, since you have become very much invulnerable to military attacks.

So, the interest of Iran to want nukes is logical and easy to understand. One should not expect them to act against their interests, or to act stupidly.

[Chock]

This only to put your remark back into perpective that Iran only is interested in Iraq from a position of self-defence. It's exactly the opposite.

The point of this discussion was to debate whether Iran could feasibly have some sort of war with (presumably) an American-led coalition force. And the point of the announcement from the Iranian Defence Minister (apart from gaining public support from waverers with a rallying cry) was that it was a response to the gathering military 'show of force' in the region, ostensibly as part of the coalition efforts in Iraq. So that was what I was responding to, by pointing out that such a statement was probably geared towards garnering the support of the populace as much as it was 'trying to sound like a badass' on the international stage.

With that in mind, their interest in Iraq and the coalition efforts is hardly 'exactly the opposite'. The US political hawks have been sabre-rattling and mooting some sort of military action against Iran for a long time. I never said it was the only reason Iran were interested in Iraq, just that the leaders and more militant religious heads in Iran can co-opt more soft-line members of their populace with a 'backs against the wall' attitude to the US threats.

This has been a proven tactic of leaders throughout history. Most notably in Nazi Germany, where the Allied bombing of civilian population centres actually had the effect of stiffening people's resolve to fight, even if they had no great love for the Nazi leaders and what they had brought the country to. As evidenced by the fact that even as the Second World War drew to a close, production rates for fighter planes etc actually went up.

That was my point.

Chock

[Frau_Phillips]

Why can't we all just get along?

...

:rotfl:

[Happy Times]

They have to feel safe to sail these in.


Description: (from foreground) USS Nimitz (CVN 68), USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) and USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) transit the Gulf of Oman.

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=29585