America Vs Iran

LundiMardi

So, first we had the whole Nuclear Power(bombs) with Iran that has caused some uproar, and now America are accusing Iran of supplying Iraq with the bombs used to kill 170 American soldiers since 2004.

So what does the future hold? Does anyone think America will take action against Iran? Personally, nothing really surprises me anymore:p

Discuss

Zebra3

Well, how many people have the American forces murdered and tortured in Iraq and what about the weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, that the Americans have?

biko

America will invade Iran. They don't care that they don't have the trust of the UN nor any other country, even the UK are getting tired of these warmongers.
Claims that they (US) have hard evidence for Irans involvement are slim at best, not even considering that Bush et al lied about evidence the last time to force a conflict.

Zebra3

America is a bully and only picks on those it thinks it can beat easily enough.

There's no chance of them trying to invade Iran.

Terry

BBC wrote:

Iran president attacks US claims
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Mr Ahmadinejad said foreign forces should leave Iraq
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says US accusations Tehran is fomenting violence in Iraq are an attempt to hide Washington's own failures.

Mr Ahmadinejad made the comments in a rare US television interview on Monday.

US officials in Iraq had said they had evidence that Iran was providing weapons to Shia militias who attacked the US military.

Mr Ahmadinejad said Iran "shied away from all conflict" and that no peace would come with foreign troops in Iraq.

'Baseless propaganda'

In the interview with ABC Television in Tehran, Mr Ahmadinejad was questioned repeatedly about the US claims.


Anyone who wants to attack our country will be seriously punished
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

He said the accusations were "excuses to prolong the stay" of US forces.

"There should be no foreigners there in Iraq. And then you see that you have peace in Iraq," Mr Ahmadinejad said.

He said any claims of Iranian military supplies should have a "court to prove the case".

Mr Ahmadinejad said: "We have made it clear the lack of security in Iraq is to our disadvantage."

Earlier Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini had called the US allegations baseless propaganda.

He said Washington had a long history of fabricating evidence.


US military image of 'explosively formed penetrators'
We assess that these activities are coming from the senior levels of the Iranian government
US official


On Sunday, US officials said they had proof that Iran had provided sophisticated weapons which had been used to kill American soldiers in Iraq.

The US claims have not been independently verified.

The Bush administration denies it is planning to invade Iran but has indicated it is willing to use military force to deal with any Iranian interference inside Iraq.

Democratic Senator Chris Dodd said the Bush administration had tried to falsify evidence before, and it would be a mistake to create a premise for future military action.

Mr Ahmadinejad told ABC he thought the possibility of an attack "very low".

"We believe there are wise people in the US who will stop such illegal actions," he said.

"Anyone who wants to attack our country will be seriously punished."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6353923.stm

In pictures: US Iran evidence
US claims: Why now?

Naked Lepper

No chance will the US invade Iraq, even if they believed they could pull it off, the whole country is basicially against sending anymore troops over.. and Bush doesnt have enough time, the backing or resources to begin another invasion.

Iran may invade the USA in a few years though. =D

Judt

As I've said over in politics, the US is posturing. Israel is the wild card. If they get a real whiff of Iran building a nuke you can wave goodbye to Tehran as a tourist destination for the next hundred years, because Israel will drop one on Iran rather than run the risk of Iran dropping one or two on Haifa.

The US doesn't have the power anymore to do more than bomb the odd factory, they certainly can't invade and occupy the country. Iran could cut off 20% of the worlds oil supply with a single missile into a tanker, blocking the major shipping artery from that part of the world.

As I say, it's Israel who will play the wild card here.

Terry

Judt wrote:

As I've said over in politics, the US is posturing. Israel is the wild card. If they get a real whiff of Iran building a nuke you can wave goodbye to Tehran as a tourist destination for the next hundred years, because Israel will drop one on Iran rather than run the risk of Iran dropping one or two on Haifa.

The US doesn't have the power anymore to do more than bomb the odd factory, they certainly can't invade and occupy the country. Iran could cut off 20% of the worlds oil supply with a single missile into a tanker, blocking the major shipping artery from that part of the world.

As I say, it's Israel who will play the wild card here.

Yep.

Israeli missile test 'successful'
An Arrow anti-ballistic missile interceptor at launch in the US
The Arrow missile was first developed to counter Iraqi scuds
Israel has carried out a successful test of its Arrow missile, the defence ministry has said.

One of the missiles was fired at night and destroyed what Israeli media said was a target similar to Iran's long-range Shahab-3 missile.

The test took place as Iran celebrated the 28th anniversary of its Islamic revolution.

Israel has considered Iran its greatest threat since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 2003, analysts say.

'Message to Iran'

"This evening's successful test reinforces Israel's readiness... against external threats at the extremes of its operational envelope," said Israeli Defence Minister Amir Peretz.

The Arrow missile was fired from a base south of Tel Aviv at a missile launched from an aircraft over the eastern Mediterranean at a high altitude.

This was the first test of the Arrow missile to be conducted at night.

Israeli public television called the test a "message to Iran".

The anti-ballistic missile system was developed jointly with the United States after Israel came under attack by Iraqi Scud missiles during the first Gulf War.

Some Western nations, including Israel, fear Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6352659.stm


I can't find it at the moment, but there was somethnig on sky news earlier about some smuggling of nuclear materials from Georgia (I think) into Iran.

Agamemnon

The US won't invade Iran, not for the foreseeable future anyway. They are already overstretched in Iraq and they can't hold the place together. They may resort to bombing it but they don't have the manpower or the will for an invasion.

Patricide

"Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only."

Correct me if m wrong but isnt this how the cold war came about? . Still though bleh israel is the one to watch.

Manic Moran

Terry wrote:

I can't find it at the moment, but there was somethnig on sky news earlier about some smuggling of nuclear materials from Georgia (I think) into Iran.

I seem to recall many moons ago (circa 2000) a report that the Iranians had likely received two former Soviet nukes that went absent after the Soviet collapse. Russians deny it.

they don't have the manpower or the will for an invasion.

Invasion, yes. Occupation, no. The US is still quite capable of invading Iran, ripping apart its facilities, and then leaving. The one is a lot less manpower-intensive and time-consuming than the other. Only problem is that it would leave an extremely pissed off population which wouldn't be particularly helpful in the long run, even if it did pretty much prevent the nuclear program.

NTM

Hobbes

I believe one of the starts of the cold war was the US flying high altitude spy planes over Russia until Russia invented a way to shoot one down.

As for Iran. US invade? Not unless something terrible happens or Isarel drag them into it.

I've been watching this from time to time.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-timeline.htm

Its a military website that has been making predictions of when attacks would take place. It even goes into why Russia has recently berated Bush.

Hobbes

The US is still quite capable of invading Iran, ripping apart its facilities, and then leaving.

I doubt it has. It certainly has the ability to take out targets without ever putting troops on the ground but thats about it. It isn't Iraq. You won't see people surrendering. The cities themselves are on-par or better then a lot of western countries. They have resources and they have the ability to choke the rest of the worlds resources.

Also they don't have nuclear weapons. They do nuclear power stations but any attack on them is going to have catastrophic reprocussions to the local populations.

TBH, the US appears to be just trying to provoke Iran into doing something. I mean Iran hasn't even reacted when the US attacked the Iran embassey.

Manic Moran

I doubt it has. It certainly has the ability to take out targets without ever putting troops on the ground but thats about it.

With three divisions worth of airmobile forces, a raid isn't out of the question. It's an issue of air transport, not troops, and that capability hasn't changed since Iraq.

I mean Iran hasn't even reacted when the US attacked the Iran embassey.

You mean that unaccredited office up in Kirkuk?

NTM

jrey1981

Rageh Omaar filed a great report from Tehran for the Sunday Times yesterday and there's a programme on BBC4 from there on Thursday.

I wouldn't like to see Iran become another Iraq....or worse.

Israel might be pushed into reacting as others have said. Perhaps the US is trying to provoke Israel to do its dirty work?

Takeshi_Kovacs

I just wonder what Bush is capable of before he leaves office., is he going to clean up his act or leave one hell of a mess for the next prez. It just doesn't seem logical to start another war, and let somebody take over the reins in a few months later. Then again maybe this has happened before, i am not too versed in American history.

This presidential candidate Barack Obama, has said he will take the US out of Iraq if he gets into power. He seems a lot more intelligent, and less trigger happy than Bush, so an invasion of Iran seems unlikely if he is president.

If Iran is invaded but not occupied, and the main guys in government are taken out, i just wonder what way will the country align itself. Will the moderates come out and establish a stable environment, or will it decay into a similar chaos a la Iraq.
Is Iran going to be wrecked and hundreds of billions of dollars of damage created, and the immeasurable cost of lives hurt/killed justified by the US in its paranoid search for security. I guess that is only something that psychos in government in both Washington and Tehran can answer.

A bit old but still interesting read http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WHI20050809&articleId=825
It is a bit shuddering to think what will happen if the US/Israel does attack Iran. Iran are much more capable militarily than Iraq, and will defend their sovereignty against all aggressors, and even if Iran ends up being nuked god forbid, how can the rest of the world stand by and justify the vaporisation of hundreds of thousands of people.
Lets hope sanity does prevail.

So Glad

If America invade Iran, for ANY cooked up excuse, and everyone stands by and watches Sky News believing they are doing the right thing I will officially have lost all hope for society. We know for a fact, that the Bush administration lied about the Iraq evidence, because they said so, now the place is ****ed up and getting worse, they are creating tension all over the world with their infectious fear.

Just one step closer to another world war, or a nuclear catastrophe.

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

With three divisions worth of airmobile forces, a raid isn't out of the question.

A raid on what exactly? As I said they have no nuclear weapons, they aren't even close to it. If the Nuclear power stations weren't protected before you can sure as hell bet they are now.

Ignoring logistics of the operation I can't see how this could even possibly go ahead. Maybe by linking mooninites to Iran?

If your talking about the so-called weapons being shipped to Iraq. Even the CIA have said that if the weapons are coming out of Iran it certainly isn't being funded by the Iranian government (to suggest so at this time is an absolute stretch. Like linking AQ to Saddam). Also the only evidence so far was western press being brought to room being told to remove all recording equipment and then have them paraded different weapons. No independent investigation at all. Based on Bush administration track record to date who would you believe?

You mean that unaccredited office up in Kirkuk?

No I mean the building in Irbil that both Iran and Iraq had declared was an Iranian embassy and had also even Kurdish backing. If it was unaccredited it was probably just the US saying so they could break international law again.

Overheal

Having lightly skimmed through the thread I want to congratulate you all for not once taking a stab at America as a whole. We applude you

And current events? **** it, I gave up months ago

DilbertPartII

America have reasons for their actions. Everything's based from intelligence sources and studies. Countries which go against the law should be punished.

Terry

which law would that be?

digitally-yours

Which law are we talking about ? International law or American law If America will attack Iran I am more then 100% sure Americans will have no safe heaven on the planet.

As Tony said " The Truth is You cannot go on forever " though he said it in a completely different context.

well I am sure Al qaeda are waiting for USA to make that mistake !
and once America is in Iraq.

Russians are also waiting for revenge and they are going to use Iran as a battle ground with USA same as USA used Afghanistan as a bettle ground against Russia !!

I am from Asia and i dont see America winning in Iran not even 1% chance !

DilbertPartII wrote:

America have reasons for their actions. Everything's based from intelligence sources and studies. Countries which go against the law should be punished.

GreenHell

Without a doubt in my mind any invasion, raid or any aggression against iran will lead to a storm no one wants.

I doubt the US will invade Iran, Iran is a handy scapegoat like it always has been.

slipss

I can't see America invading Iran but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did. I would be able to see them launching air strikes under the guise Iran arming themselves with WMDs except for the fact that America won't need to send a single aircraft if any evidence does present itself that Iran are close to having fully functioning nukes. Isreal will do that for them. (in American made jets using american made munitions flown by american trained pilots, of course.) Haven't Isreal already in the past launched air raids on Iranian targets they claimed were nuke factories?

So Glad

If we have ever learned anything from the past, war is not the answer to anything.

DaBreno

Iran FTW!!!!!11!!

So Glad

All ur iranium enrichment plants are belong 2 us!!!!11!!!

InFront

So Glad wrote:

iranium

.

Black Swan

LundiMardi wrote:

So what does the future hold? Does anyone think America will take action against Iran? Personally, nothing really surprises me anymore:p

Naaaa, not since Bush's party lost ground in their Congressional elections held November last year. He is just chest thumping.

toiletduck

slipss wrote:

Haven't Isreal already in the past launched air raids on Iranian targets they claimed were nuke factories?

No, Israel destroyed an Iraqi nuclear site in 1981. A move which was condemded even by the U.S., but I'm sure circa 1991 they were glad the Israelis had the balls to do it.



An invasion of Iran? Only in the wet-dreams of the anti-war crowd. Seriously it won't happen. Nobody with an ounce of sense wants it.

Tar.Aldarion

He can't be stupid enough to invade Iran can he?
Although, I've said similar sentences before.

So Glad

InFront wrote:

.

A convenient typo?

Judt

Bomb them, not invade.

So Glad

I'd expect that would be their first tactic, bravely bomb them whilst your out of range then when they outrageously retaliate, bomb their children. Classic tactics used by American forces for years.

muppetkiller

The US supplied Iraq last time to fight Iran in the Iran/Iraq war
Now we have the Iranians Supply Iraq in the IRAQ / US war

Progress of Humanity people lol

toiletduck

muppetkiller wrote:

The US supplied Iraq last time to fight Iran in the Iran/Iraq war
Now we have the Iranians Supply Iraq in the IRAQ / US war

Progress of Humanity people lol

The U.S. helped both sides in that war actually

So Glad

toiletduck wrote:

The U.S. helped both sides in that war actually

Whilst helping themselves in the process.

toiletduck

.....Your point being? That they shouldn't have done what was in their interest?

So Glad

No, I'm saying they helped themselves financially.

War + Other People Death = American Profit

toiletduck

Yes, cos only Americans do that.... No other country on the planet does :rolleyes:


Anyways thats neither here nor there in regards to the thread

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

toiletduck wrote:

The U.S. helped both sides in that war actually

and who were the Russians helping?

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Hobbes wrote:

A raid on what exactly?

same type of raid as in Afghanistan and Iraq, blanket bomb villages, towns and all other built up areas... that way at least they have to get one or two 'targets'

Terry

Yeah, but then they have to get rid of all those pesky insurgents in the country they have invaded. No respect for america's iron fist, those people.

toiletduck

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

and who were the Russians helping?

Both sides also got weaponary from the Soviet Union aswell. Read up on it. It's a fascinating war

darkflower

America vs Iran? I'd go for America. Understand their reasons.

ambro25

Thing is, aside from Israel, Irak for decades (Saddam's time) used to be the main stabilising force in the area in terms of secular/non-secular governments (let's say secular "influence", of which there never was any under Saddam).

Now, one has to wonder whether Iran hasn't got some Lebensraum-type designs on Irak, once the US clear away. After all the trauma the population's been through since 1991, what better way to repair psyches than with religion... of which there is much in Iran.

Irrespective of nukes, an Iran-run Irak + Iran would make for a seriously scary situation in the ME, and affect many a balance of power not only in the immediate area, but well beyond it on a global scale... Think about it: who's got sufficient oil reserves to supply booming oil-guzzling economies and keep'em booming, and dire relationships with the US? Iran, and Irak when the US intermeddling is gone. Now, who's emerging (already there?) as a global challenger to the US, and needs squillions worth of oil ? China.

Bed 'em up, and the auld Western developed countries, and that includes the US, have a bit of an economical and geopolitical worry on their hands.

Terry

ambro25 wrote:

Thing is, aside from Israel, Irak for decades (Saddam's time) used to be the main stabilising force in the area in terms of secular/non-secular governments (let's say secular "influence", of which there never was any under Saddam).

Now, one has to wonder whether Iran hasn't got some Lebensraum-type designs on Irak, once the US clear away. After all the trauma the population's been through since 1991, what better way to repair psyches than with religion... of which there is much in Iran.

Irrespective of nukes, an Iran-run Irak + Iran would make for a seriously scary situation in the ME, and affect many a balance of power not only in the immediate area, but well beyond it on a global scale... Think about it: who's got sufficient oil reserves to supply booming oil-guzzling economies and keep'em booming, and dire relationships with the US? Iran, and Irak when the US intermeddling is gone. Now, who's emerging (already there?) as a global challenger to the US, and needs squillions worth of oil ? China.

Bed 'em up, and the auld Western developed countries, and that includes the US, have a bit of an economical and geopolitical worry on their hands.

Ahh, screw it. We had a good run. It was fun while it lasted.
Let's all go and learn Mandarin.

ODS

The BBC wrote:

US 'Iran attack plans' revealed

USS John C Stennis is being deployed to the Persian Gulf
US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.
It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.
The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.
The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions.
But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.
That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say.

Two triggers

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.
The Natanz plant is buried under concrete, metal and earth
Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.
Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground.
The BBC's Tehran correspondent France Harrison says the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians.
Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says.

Deadline

Earlier this month US officials said they had evidence Iran was providing weapons to Iraqi Shia militias. At the time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the accusations were "excuses to prolong the stay" of US forces in Iraq.
Middle East analysts have recently voiced their fears of catastrophic consequences for any such US attack on Iran.
Britain's previous ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC it would backfire badly by probably encouraging the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term.
Last year Iran resumed uranium enrichment - a process that can make fuel for power stations or, if greatly enriched, material for a nuclear bomb.
Tehran insists its programme is for civil use only, but Western countries suspect Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.
The UN Security Council has called on Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium by 21 February.
If it does not, and if the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms this, the resolution says that further economic sanctions will be considered.

.

cournioni

I reckon it will be 3-1 to Iran...

Ali Daei with two, Ali Karimi with the other one from a long range effort and McBride will get a consolation goal for America.

SimpleSam06

So Glad wrote:

I'd expect that would be their first tactic, bravely bomb them whilst your out of range then when they outrageously retaliate, bomb their children. Classic tactics used by American forces for years.

The US (different to America folks!) can't bomb Iran, can't raid Iran, can't invade Iran, and won't be able to for the forseeable future, and neither can Israel. Yes the Iranians have been feeding weapons across that extremely porous border, have been for years, and most people involved knew that. The "shocking" press release about them providing weapons to Iraqi Shia militias is old news, just more sabre rattling.

This isn't Iraq we're talking about here, whipped after years of embargoes and inspections, half ruined already, and the terrain is completely different, rugged hills and canyon country.

Iranian troops number about a half a million in the regular armed forces, and upwards of 6 million irregulars in the Basij volunteer force (some reports put it at 11 million), as well as the Qods (Jerusalem) special forces, who report directly to the Ayatollah.

During the Iran-Iraq war the Basij force hadn't enough weapons, so men, women and children literally hurled themselves bodily at (the vastly superior) Iraqi forces, carrying sticks and rocks, in their hundreds of thousands. The Iranians specialise these days in taking foreign manufactured weapons of war and building their own domestic versions, often improved. They now have domestic military industrial manufacturing for just about everything except the air force.

The Iranian armed forces have been trained in using asymmetrical warfare to all kinds of harmful effect. This is more or less deciding you aren't going to fight head on and using guerilla tactics, at least in this case.

As to why the US can't raid or bomb Iran, as I said its been well known for a while that Iran is trickling troops and supplies across the extremely porous border with Iraq, but thats nothing compared with what they could send if the US takes overt action against Iran. If the US thought they had it hard in Iraq at the moment, they should see what it looks like when Iranian special forces are training Iraqi insurgents in the use of the very latest tactics and weapons supplied courtesy of the Islamic Republic. Bombing Iran is simply guaranteeing the unification of Iran and Iraq, and probably Afghanistan too. And lets not forget the oil channels through there.

And the US knows it. All this posturing is just brinkmanship.

An embargo isn't going to work either, since the Chinese will trade Iran whatever it needs in whatever quantities are required in exchange for that tasty black gold they have in such abundance, which the Chinese need for their newly burgeoning middle class.

With all that said, it will never turn into a third world war, its far too localised a situation for that. The funniest thing about all this is that the moderates in Iran were well on their way to removing the religious extremists from power prior to the hostilities in Iraq; continued US aggression is only entrenching the hardliners in power. I actually know a few Iranians currently in Iran, including a few women and they are more angry at the US for making the Ayatollah stronger than for any threat to their country's sovereignty.

Just leave them alone!