Iran - How long until the invasion?

Hellm0

Article

So, how long until Iran faces military intrusion? I get the impression - not long.

The Saint

I'd very much doubt that there'll be an invasion. The US does not have the capacity or political will for one. It's more likely that there will be targetted strikes against Iranian facilities by the US. I'd dount the Israelis will do it as they are in a vulnerable position geographically. However, if the US bombs Iranian facilities the Iranians can make the US position in the Middle East very uncomfortable. There's another possibility that Iran will develop nuclear weapons (if that is indeed what they are doing) and no military action will be taken against them.

Hellm0

The Saint wrote: »

I'd very much doubt that there'll be an invasion. The US does not have the capacity or political will for one. It's more likely that there will be targetted strikes against Iranian facilities by the US. I'd dount the Israelis will do it as they are in a vulnerable position geographically. However, if the US bombs Iranian facilities the Iranians can make the US position in the Middle East very uncomfortable. There's another possibility that Iran will develop nuclear weapons (if that is indeed what they are doing) and no military action will be taken against them.

I suspect they are, if they are not then fair play to them. That said however, if they are on the cusp of attaining a nuclear weapon then certainly Israel will feel the need to act, with or without US approval.

As you said, the likely response from the US would be a targeted aerial job, a land invasion by the US would stretch them rather thin (though maybe they will hire black water to do it hehe). This is not so much a problem for Israel.

Overheal

I wish they were developing a weapon. Better than the alternative, which is selling Enriched Uranium to the high bidder.

Hellm0

Overheal wrote: »

I wish they were developing a weapon. Better than the alternative, which is selling Enriched Uranium to the high bidder.

Well, as I said earlier, I do believe there is probably a weapons program underway however, why is selling enriched uranium the only alternative? Perhaps they really DO want it for energy generation. At least they have been open about being in possession of the technology, unlike others...

Soldie

The U.S. is completely broke, so I can't see them getting involved anytime soon.

The Saint

Hellm0 wrote: »

As you said, the likely response from the US would be a targeted aerial job, a land invasion by the US would stretch them rather thin (though maybe they will hire black water to do it hehe). This is not so much a problem for Israel.

I'd pretty much guarantee that Israel wouldn't engage in a land invasion. The shitstorm it would create would be unfathomable. More likely would be a tagetted bombing campaign on Iran's nuclear facilities. I'd also imagine that the US would prefer if Israel stayed out of it too. If it was to be done I'd imagine that it would be the US to do it.

Zynks

I think it will be stupid to go for direct confrontation. The US has about enough enemies at this stage, and they should be starting to realise from Iraq and Afghanistan that they may not have enough butt to be kicked.

A targeted bombing is a strong and very foolish possibility. I heard recently that the US has been developing specialized weapons that will get through the huge concrete layer under which the Iranians have their facilities.

Hellm0

The Saint wrote: »

I'd pretty much guarantee that Israel wouldn't engage in a land invasion. The shitstorm it would create would be unfathomable. More likely would be a tagetted bombing campaign on Iran's nuclear facilities. I'd also imagine that the US would prefer if Israel stayed out of it too. If it was to be done I'd imagine that it would be the US to do it.

Perhaps, I agree that it would be a sh1t storm if either Israel or the US were to attempt a land invasion. That said, Israel has shown it has few qualms with creating a sh1t storm in the past. After all is said and done, even an air based offensive would inevitably lead to a confrontation with other Islamic nations, which could imaginably lead to a land based conflict. Israel has to be aware of this, so if they are going to pull the trigger on Iran they are going to come out all guns blazing or not at all.

The Saint

Hellm0 wrote: »

Perhaps, I agree that it would be a sh1t storm if either Israel or the US were to attempt a land invasion. That said, Israel has shown it has few qualms with creating a sh1t storm in the past. After all is said and done, even an air based offensive would inevitably lead to a confrontation with other Islamic nations, which could imaginably lead to a land based conflict. Israel has to be aware of this, so if they are going to pull the trigger on Iran they are going to come out all guns blazing or not at all.

That's why I don't believe that Israel would engage in an attack. It would be likely to inflame the entire region against them. If the US attacked it would be less inflamatory since it has close allys in the region that would probably be quite happy to see the US remove Iran's nuclear capability.

Hellm0

The Saint wrote: »

That's why I don't believe that Israel would engage in an attack. It would be likely to inflame the entire region against them. If the US attacked it would be less inflamatory since it has close allys in the region that would probably be quite happy to see the US remove Iran's nuclear capability.

A sound point and observation however the US public is not supportive towards opening up a third front right now. Unless the US media begins the war drums some time soon I would see an American lead initiative being a non issue.

Israel however may rely upon the US to back it up in such a situation. You may note the settlement "freeze" as an attempt to curry favor with the current US administration, an attempt to appear open to peace. Not to speculate, but if Israel gets "attacked" by Iran any time soon this would make any US involvement much less difficult. Keep the eyes open for false flags I say:P

whadabouchasir

I don't think The Uk or the Us will unvade since they have too many business intrests in Iran.So an invasion sems unlikely.

Overheal

Zynks wrote: »

I think it will be stupid to go for direct confrontation. The US has about enough enemies at this stage, and they should be starting to realise from Iraq and Afghanistan that they may not have enough butt to be kicked.

A targeted bombing is a strong and very foolish possibility. I heard recently that the US has been developing specialized weapons that will get through the huge concrete layer under which the Iranians have their facilities.

Well that would probably be a new generation derived from existing bunker buste-WAIT A MINUTE why does the US have to do the dirty work if Iran is found to be making Nukes, sorry lads, youre coming with us: it would be a UN security effort, with UN effort and UN colors flying.

Hellm0

Overheal wrote: »

Well that would probably be a new generation derived from existing bunker buste-WAIT A MINUTE why does the US have to do the dirty work if Iran is found to be making Nukes, sorry lads, youre coming with us: it would be a UN security effort, with UN effort and UN colors flying.

Yeah, like last ti...oh wait.

Overheal

Hellm0 wrote: »

Yeah, like last ti...oh wait.

When the GOP was running things and relying on Divine Wisdom Oh God told me to invade Iraq ha ha no not this time thx :pac:

there are some days when I wish the Pretzel had killed him.

Hellm0

Overheal wrote: »

When the GOP was running things and relying on Divine Wisdom Oh God told me to invade Iraq ha ha no not this time thx :pac:

Not to derail the topic at hand here but GOP or Democrat, two sides of the same coin. The only difference is which hand they use to give you a reach around.

dlofnep

I don't think the US have the resources for another war. Attacking Iran would reduce stability in Iraq I'd imagine. It would be a very tough war.

I do however feel that Israel MIGHT attack Iran. They seem to be alot more vocal about it than anyone else. The US might give them external support.

toiletduck

A long time. This has been predicted with regularity for the past seven years or so...

skelliser

the israelis will do a dawn raid like they did in iraq, but the iranians are wide to this; building multiple nuclear sites.
the only other way is to destabilize the current regime, this of course is the most likely option.

Hellm0

skelliser wrote: »

the israelis will do a dawn raid like they did in iraq, but the iranians are wide to this; building multiple nuclear sites.
the only other way is to destabilize the current regime, this of course is the most likely option.

They have been at this a while now, I'd say there's more than just Israels PSYOPS people working on it too.

Overheal

Whats the story with the current regime anyway - are we yet certain if its legitimate or not?

skelliser

well the western powers are past masters with messing with other countries regimes, iran being no different, the shah etc.

The current regime imo is pretty solid, any hint of western involvement only inflames the religious zealots.

America met its match in Ayatollah Khomeini. I especially love his treatment of Carter during the hostage crisis. Carter vowed to get them out of there on his watch at any cost; see failed air rescue. Khomeini only released them minutes after reagan was inaugurated! lol!

Hellm0

Overheal wrote: »

Whats the story with the current regime anyway - are we yet certain if its legitimate or not?

It's about as legitimate as it's going to get, I don't see Iraq's or Afghanistan's government as being any more democratic.

The Saint

skelliser wrote: »

America met its match in Ayatollah Khomeini. I especially love his treatment of Carter during the hostage crisis. Carter vowed to get them out of there on his watch at any cost; see failed air rescue. Khomeini only released them minutes after reagan was inaugurated! lol!

The Iranian holding of hostages was illegal under international law. Not very funny. Plus, any action that helped Regan win the election ahead of Carter was not a good outcome, not to mention the subsequent Iran/Contra affair.

Not sure how any of this can be deemed funny.

Overheal

The Saint wrote: »

The Iranian holding of hostages was illegal under international law. Not very funny. Plus, any action that helped Regan win the election ahead of Carter was not a good outcome, not to mention the subsequent Iran/Contra affair.

Not sure how any of this can be deemed funny.

I believe it was meant as a blind one-upmanship against the US "lol"

skelliser

Overheal wrote: »

I believe it was meant as a blind one-upmanship against the US "lol"

+1

also the american military operation to free the hostages broke a few international laws

Overheal

skelliser wrote: »

+1

That doesnt mean I dont think it wasnt stupid.

pablomakaveli

If Israel feels threatened, they won't hesitate in attacking Iran though more than likely this will come in the form of long range bombing of nuclear facilities.

The US will be far less likely to attack given their already bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Saint

skelliser wrote: »

+1

also the american military operation to free the hostages broke a few international laws

Can you specify the international laws that were violated during the rescue?

skelliser

violation of iranian airspace being the most notable one.

i dont see however what the point your trying to make, i just commented on the fact that Khomeini made a fool of Carter, i never said it was funny. Also you seem to believe that it was the iranians fault re election of reagan, contras etc. now that is funny!

The Saint

skelliser wrote: »

violation of iranian airspace being the most notable one.

i dont see however what the point your trying to make, i just commented on the fact that Khomeini made a fool of Carter, i never said it was funny. Also you seem to believe that it was the iranians fault re election of reagan, contras etc. now that is funny!

Can you provide me with a source for this being a violation of international law, especially after the International Court of Justice ruled that the hostage taking was illegal?

I didn't say it was the Iranians fault that Carter lost the election but that it was a partial consequence of why he lost the election. This view is quite widely held.