Iran

Gringo180

I see the Iranians have purchased a weapon defence system from the Russians and now the Israeli's are up in arms about it. Just seen a clip of Nethanyahu condemning this sale and coming out with alot of war rhetoric.

But what I find funny is that the Israeli's keep on going on about the right to defend themselves but yet when the Iranians want to do the same there up in arms over it!!

BoJack Horseman

Gringo180 wrote: »

I see the Iranians have purchased a weapon defence system from the Russians

There is a caveat in that, though a deal is likely, Iran hasn't yet signed the dotted line (they are expensive @approx $160m per battery).

now the Israeli's are up in arms about it.

Well they would.
The S-300 poses a much bigger challenge than the likes of the BUK missile systems used in Syria, that Israel can counter easily.

If the S-300 works as intended (a big 'if') I don't think Israel has a counter measure.

Iran has been equally rhetorical about Israel's attempts at creating a working ABM shield.

But what I find funny is that the Israeli's keep on going on about the right to defend themselves but yet when the Iranians want to do the same there up in arms over it!!

His outrage is in the context of all arms embargoes against Iran being lifted with no quid-pro-quo.

gandalf

Gringo180 wrote: »

I see the Iranians have purchased a weapon defence system from the Russians and now the Israeli's are up in arms about it. Just seen a clip of Nethanyahu condemning this sale and coming out with alot of war rhetoric.

But what I find funny is that the Israeli's keep on going on about the right to defend themselves but yet when the Iranians want to do the same there up in arms over it!!

It basically means that Israel can't bomb the Iranians without a cost now and that's why Nethanyahu is jumping up and down. They are probably doing it because the relations between Iran and the US are thawing which is bad news for them.

At least this way Nethanyahu can pander to the Right Wing Republicans in the US and give them another stick to beat the peace discussions with Iran and try to derail the whole process.

hfallada

Nethanyahu has an issue with everything Iran and the US do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07rETBLslrk

Jon Stewart has a funny piece on it.

WakeUp

entirely predictable that this would happen at some stage considering the trajectory of the situation in Ukraine. even though Israel was one of the few countries not to publicly condemn Russia for their actions in Ukraine. and I dont think its a coincidence it happened in and around the same time US paratroopers have or will be arriving in Ukraine to train their troops. Israel was going to be dragged into this sooner or later. the sale isnt aimed toward Israel its aimed at the US. not just for Ukraine but for Syria too. Putin warned the Americans he would go down this road if they continued on their course in Ukraine. this is the first step and it wont end here. now the Israelis are threatening to send arms to Ukraine in response to the Russians lifting the sale embargo to Iran. and the Russians have said do that and we will ship the S300 to Assad aswell. if either Israel or the west arm Ukraine then Russia will not only arm Iran with this system but Syria too. and it will be a potential game changer in the region.

DavidRamsay99

Gringo180 wrote: »

I see the Iranians have purchased a weapon defence system from the Russians and now the Israeli's are up in arms about it. Just seen a clip of Nethanyahu condemning this sale and coming out with alot of war rhetoric.

But what I find funny is that the Israeli's keep on going on about the right to defend themselves but yet when the Iranians want to do the same there up in arms over it!!

The Iranians are freaking lunatics and I don't want them to have nuclear arms.
If they get them the Saudis and the rest of the lunatics in the region will want them too.
Do we want a world where backward savages with their heads still stuck in the 7th century have their hands on nukes?

The reason the USA and USSR never went to war is because of Mutually Assured Destruction. Neither side were suicidal and though they played the brinkmanship game from time to time they did not want to vaporize each other.

Both Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arab are run by hyper religious crackpots who would wipe each other out.

Once they have nukes it will be too late.

Gatling

WakeUp wrote: »

entirely predictable that this would happen at some stage considering the trajectory of the situation in Ukraine. even though Israel was one of the few countries not to publicly condemn Russia for their actions in Ukraine. and I dont think its a coincidence it happened in and around the same time US paratroopers have or will be arriving in Ukraine to train their troops. Israel was going to be dragged into this sooner or later. the sale isnt aimed toward Israel its aimed at the US. not just for Ukraine but for Syria too. Putin warned the Americans he would go down this road if they continued on their course in Ukraine. this is the first step and it wont end here. now the Israelis are threatening to send arms to Ukraine in response to the Russians lifting the sale embargo to Iran. and the Russians have said do that and we will ship the S300 to Assad aswell. if either Israel or the west arm Ukraine then Russia will not only arm Iran with this system but Syria too. and it will be a potential game changer in the region.

You have miss read this .
The only reason Russia is selling the SS300 system has nothing to do with Ukraine or Russia 's actions in Ukraine,
Iran has been on the list to get the S300 missles for 3/4 years at least .
Any how this is aimed at the Arab coalition currently bombing Iranian sponsored groups in Yemen .
Here 's the kicker this may piss off the Israelis to a degree ,
But Iran hasnt taken a delivery of any S300's and seem how well versed the Israeli special forces are at finding and stopping weapons shipments around the globe I'd wouldn't be at all suprised if they ended up been put on display in tel aviv at some stage.
With the added bonus of an Israeli /Saudi group working on an Iran solution pretty soon

BoJack Horseman

WakeUp wrote: »

Putin warned the Americans he would go down this road if they continued on their course in Ukraine.

I'm as disgusted by the US army's invasion & annexation of east Ukraine as the next man, but Iran has been an arms customer of the new/old soviet empire for a long time.

The lifting of embargo's just opens up the market for bigger & better kit.

And rouble-for-rouble, the S300 is probably the best value long range SAM out there.

Manach

This action might play well to Putin's domestic population. There still is a large residue of mistrust left over from the previous Cold War and this move could be seen as undermining the US global positioning. Albeit Russia arming a Muslim power all things considered a tad ironic.

ComfortKid

DavidRamsay99 wrote:

The Iranians are freaking lunatics and I don't want them to have nuclear arms. If they get them the Saudis and the rest of the lunatics in the region will want them too. Do we want a world where backward savages with their heads still stuck in the 7th century have their hands on nukes?

Who have the Iranians ever bombed?
Which Country is the only to ever use a Nuke? Not the savages stuck in the 7th century

Junkyard Tom

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

The Iranians are freaking lunatics and I don't want them to have nuclear arms. If they get them the Saudis and the rest of the lunatics in the region will want them too.

So you're calling for a nuclear free middle east? How about we start with the one rogue nuclear state in the region i.e. Israel?

Regardless, Israel isn't really concerned with Iran's non-existent nukes - what Israel is concerned with is Iran's development as a regional power that challenges Israel's theatre dominance.

BoJack Horseman

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

what Israel is concerned with is Iran's development as a regional power that challenges Israel's theatre dominance.

Israel doesn't dominate the ME to begin with.
Her concerns are more parochial.

Which of these countries does Israel dominate?

Turkey, Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates

Junkyard Tom

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Israel doesn't dominate the ME....

Theatre dominance militarily. Israel is the only nuclear weapon possessing state in the region and has the most powerful military in the region. Israel has carried out air-strikes against sites in Iraq and Syria knowing it's unlikely to face reprisals due to its military capability and the US's support.

Gatling

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

So you're calling for a nuclear free middle east? How about we start with the one rogue nuclear state in the region i.e. Israel?

Israel is a rogue nuclear state .

Who have they threaten to wipe off the face of the earth repeatedly.

Have they ever threatened any other state with nuclear weapons? ?

Arsemageddon

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Israel doesn't dominate the ME to begin with.
Her concerns are more parochial.

Which of these countries does Israel dominate?

The poster you quoted referred to 'theatre dominance', it's military term meaning that Israel has the most powerful and effective military in the region. It does not mean that Israel controls the day to day running of other states.

Other than the scud missiles fired by Iraq during the Gulf War in 1991 no other state in the region has attacked Israel since the Yom Kippur War in 1973.

WakeUp

Gatling wrote: »

You have miss read this .
The only reason Russia is selling the SS300 system has nothing to do with Ukraine or Russia 's actions in Ukraine,
Iran has been on the list to get the S300 missles for 3/4 years at least .
Any how this is aimed at the Arab coalition currently bombing Iranian sponsored groups in Yemen .
Here 's the kicker this may piss off the Israelis to a degree ,
But Iran hasnt taken a delivery of any S300's and seem how well versed the Israeli special forces are at finding and stopping weapons shipments around the globe I'd wouldn't be at all suprised if they ended up been put on display in tel aviv at some stage.
With the added bonus of an Israeli /Saudi group working on an Iran solution pretty soon

Nah I havent misread it at all this was predictable was only a matter of time before it happened. and if Ukraine is armed it wont be just Iran getting this system so too will the Syrians. it isnt aimed at the Arab coalition bombing Yemen though it will affect them, so far the Russians have been pretty much non committal as to which side they are supporting. the conflict in Yemen is being viewed as a Saudi/Iranian proxy battle though its incorrect to believe Russia has vested interests in supporting the Iranian proxies. whatever leverage Moscow had over Yemen pretty much faded away after the country unified. this potential sale is bigger than Yemen. Israel will attack a Russian arms shipment to Iran? eh no they wont. as for the Israelis and Saudis coming up with a solution by this I assume you mean an attack on Iran? I dont think so. do that and they will be at war with not only Iran but also Russia and China. if the Iranians are smart and I think they might be, with Russian acquiescent, they will have already sent people to Russia under the radar to train on the S300 and get up to speed. so as that when the delivery happens, boom out of the box so to speak and ready to go. high level diplomats from both countries have met over the past number of months. it wouldnt surprise me at all if indeed this has happened. would have been the smart thing to do assuming the Russians were down with it and the sale has already been agreed and delivery date put in place for certain.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I'm as disgusted by the US army's invasion & annexation of east Ukraine as the next man, but Iran has been an arms customer of the new/old soviet empire for a long time.

The lifting of embargo's just opens up the market for bigger & better kit.

And rouble-for-rouble, the S300 is probably the best value long range SAM out there.

yes bojack no one is disputing what the Russians did in Ukraine and I certainly havent. though the Americans are involved there too for their own reasons. and whether you or I agree with or not Putin did warn the Americans he would go down this road. and now he has. if and when the Russians deliver this system to Iran and perhaps Syria it will fundamentally change US/Israeli war plans in the region. it will affect the entire middle east and shake up alliances. its a power projection for the Russians and thats exactly what the Iranians will be buying. though if you believe its just a case of opening up the markets to bigger and better kit then fair enough thats up to you.

Junkyard Tom

Gatling wrote: »

Israel is a rogue nuclear state.

Well it developed nukes and is not a signatory to the NPT. Israel has also been accused of helping apartheid South Africa develop nukes.

Who have they threaten to wipe off the face of the earth repeatedly.

Not that old chestnut.

Have they ever threatened any other state with nuclear weapons?

You don't need to threaten other states when you have nukes - just having them is threat enough especially when there is no mutually assured destruction.

Gringo180

Gatling wrote: »

Who have they threaten to wipe off the face of the earth repeatedly.

They haven't threatened, but have done so. I dont see Palestine anywhere on the atlas.

Gatling

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Well it developed nukes and is not a signatory to the NPT. Israel has also been accused of helping apartheid South Africa develop nukes.



Not that old chestnut.



You don't need to threaten other states when you have nukes - just having them is threat enough especially when there is no mutually assured destruction.

So the old adage if it's good enough for one its good enough for the other .
So what would have happened if Iraq and Syria had nukes that ended up in Isis hands .

Then Israel would have to step in and well nuke Iran Iraq and Syria .

Imagine the Domince they would have

Gatling

Any how back on the the issue Iran .

As things currently stand it looks like there planning a putinesque Job in Iraq at the moment pushing for complete control outside of Baghdad.
There heavily backed militias aren't making a lot of progress against Isis .
To the point there asking Iraq to stop American airsupport because "they don't need it" and because it's supposed slowing them down .
Almost every city and town outside of Baghdad is decorated with Ali Khamenei building sized images ala saddam.
It's almost like Ukraine 2.0

DavidRamsay99

ComfortKid wrote: »

Who have the Iranians ever bombed?

Let's take a chance?

Which Country is the only to ever use a Nuke? Not the savages stuck in the 7th century

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were bombed because the Japanese refused to surrender and the alternative was an invasion of the Japanese islands which would have resulted in millions more dead.

If you think Iran will not use nukes if they get their hands one you are out of your mind.

hfallada

I think Israel is ****ting it financial. If Iran makes peace with the US. Its basically peace in the Middle, bar ISIS and the Syrian Civil war. But if Iran enters the 21st Century and becomes a more normal country. Plus there is a huge push within Europe to put an end to the Palestine-Israeli Issue. If Palestine becomes a legit country, which I think is actually years away for once.

I think you can see Israel very nervous, as the endless US money might become tight. Plus all the special Israel US deals on trade/Emigration might be scaled back. When few countries have a favourable opinion about your country and its goods, your economy is extremely fragile.

Manach

Neutral on this discussion, so looking at it from a cyber operations perspective which had impacted the nuclear side of things(paraphrasing books such as Inside Cyber Warefare by Carr and Countdown to Zero day by Zetter) via Stuxnet, both Israel and other Middle-East countries such as Iran have nearly all engaged in some some of IT attacks over the past decade. Thankfully these do not yet replicate kinetic weapons (as per the Tallinn Doctrine), there is a low-level of warfare constantly on-going between those countries albeit not usually reported by the press.

WakeUp

Gatling wrote: »

.Any how this is aimed at the Arab coalition currently bombing Iranian sponsored groups in Yemen .

just on the Yemen issue again as it ties in with Iran just came across this. its been reported then denied. suppose time will tell if its accurate or not. so much going on at the moment there really is.

US Navy Sends Aircraft Carrier, Warships To Intercept Iranian Weapons Shipments In Yemeni Waters

Update: Because the report from AP does not play well with "Everyday Americans", US CentCom is denying:

*U.S. DENIES REPORT SHIP SENT TO INTERCEPT IRAN VESSEL
*U.S. SAYS SHIP SENT TO KEEP SHIPPING LANES IN REGION OPEN

The 'proxy' war is escalating very rapidly. As AP reports, Navy officials confirm that the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt is headed to Yemeni waters to intercept an Iranian weapons shipments. Just as we warned 10 days ago, the probability of a major escalation over the latest proxy Middle Eastern civil war escalated substantially when Iran parked two warships off the Yemeni coast.

As AP details,

U.S. Navy officials say the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt is steaming toward the waters off Yemen and will join other American ships prepared to intercept any Iranian vessels carrying weapons to the Houthi (HOO'-thee) rebels fighting in Yemen.

The U.S. Navy has been beefing up its presence in the Gulf of Aden and the southern Arabian Sea amid reports that a convoy of Iranian ships may be headed toward Yemen to arm the Houthis.

The Houthis are battling government-backed fighters in an effort to take control of the country.

There are about nine U.S. ships in the region, including cruisers and destroyers carrying teams that can board and search other vessels.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the ship movement on the record.

* * *
As the following Naval update map shows, the two Iran warships will now be located in the immediate vicinity of not only two US aircraft carriers, CVN-71 Teddy Roosevelt and CVN-70 Vinson, but well as the big-deck amphibious warship Iwo Jima which as reported before is providing marine support should the situation demand it.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-20/navy-confirms-us-warship-intercepts-iranian-weapons-shipments-yemeni-waters?page=1

Gatling

And rightly so .

An Aircraft carrier and 8 warships should keep things under wraps and prevent any weapon shipments getting to terror groups hands .
Now makes me wonder though if they can stop any other shipments or will they leave that to another nation

WakeUp

you know if this is true and its looking like it is this is a really potentially dangerous situation it isnt good. I think the Saudis are already blockading Yemini ports. moving a carrier out of the Persian gulf and into the Gulf of Aden is a peculiar and significant move in so much as so far the States have let the Saudis take the lead. according to the military times these ships are prepared to intercept the Iranian ships and have been tracking them since last week..

The Roosevelt is also tracking a convoy of Iranian ships headed to the Gulf of Aden, said a Defense official speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the Iranian vessels. The Iranians have been supporting Houthi rebels in Yemen.

The Pentagon has been tracking the progress of the Iranian ships since last week, the official said.

The Navy is prepared to intercept the ships, according to a second Defense Department official who was not authorized to speak publicly.

Moving the Roosevelt is viewed by the Pentagon as significant but not necessarily a prelude to conflict.

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/04/20/us-warship-sent-to-block-iran-weapons-off-yemen/26082847/

American warships are prepared to intercept a convoy of Iranian ships suspected of carrying weapons to Houthi rebel forces in Yemen, senior defense and military officials told NBC News on Monday.

An Iranian convoy of freighters, escorted by warships from the Iranian military and Revolutionary Guard forces, appears headed for Yemen, the officials said.

They emphasized that while the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier group would be in position to intercept the convoy, an intercept could also be carried out by Saudi Arabia, Egypt or the United Arab Emirates, which are patrolling the waters off Yemen.

Supported by the United States, Saudi Arabia has led Sunni Arab countries in carrying out more than three weeks of airstrikes targeting the rebels, who are backed by Iran and have seized parts of Yemen.

There is no indication that U.S. or other coalition warships have been in contact with the Iranians, but one official told NBC News, "They know we're there."

Some U.S. officials are concerned that the leak of the information is not good, coming at the same time as the United States and other countries try to reach a final agreement on Iran's nuclear program.

"Since this is now public, the Iranians may feel they've been backed into a corner" and attempt to run through any blockade set up by the coalition warships, one official said

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-prepared-intercept-iranian-convoy-suspected-carrying-weapons-yemen-n345041

Gatling

Iranian ships try to muscle it's way past a US Navy carrier group that's not going to end well .

The US has not lost a naval encounter since 1944 .

johnnyskeleton

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

backward savages

Mod: consider this your final warning. Read the charter, read other posts, and see what stanard of postibg is required. You couldve made your point by commenting on the theocracy in Iran or the dynastic Saudi royal family or in a dozen other ways. Asserting that two entire countries are "baxkward savages" is not real political debate.

Sierra Oscar

Gatling wrote: »

Iranian ships try to muscle it's way past a US Navy carrier group that's not going to end well .

The US has not lost a naval encounter since 1944 .

Iran caused plenty of disruption to the US navy during the Iran - Iraq War, particularly with the use of surface-to-sea weapons.

(You know, the war where the US supported Saddam Hussein and supplied him with chemical weapons that were used on Iranian soldiers and civilians).

Albeit the disruption was targeted at US ships attempting to blockade the Persian Gulf / Gulf of Oman. I seriously doubt Iran will look for a naval encounter around the Gulf of Aden.

Gatling

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Iran caused plenty of disruption to the US navy during the Iran - Iraq War, particularly with the use of surface-to-sea weapons.

(You know, the war where the US supported Saddam Hussein and supplied him with chemical weapons that were used on Iranian soldiers and civilians).

Albeit the disruption was targeted at US ships attempting to blockade the Persian Gulf / Gulf of Oman. I seriously doubt Iran will look for a naval encounter around the Gulf of Aden.

This is true to a degree .
The US special forces carried out multiple operations against iranian naval forces in the same period .
In saying that Iran recently carried out a mock battle against a balsa wood minture carrier off its coast a few weeks back showing small craft apparently over whelming the mock carrier before it was sank .
What good it actually did the Iranians I don't know.
But a full carrier group against a handful of fast boats will be a disaster

BoJack Horseman

Gatling wrote: »

its coast a few weeks back showing small craft apparently over whelming the mock carrier before it was sank .
What good it actually did the Iranians I don't know.
But a full carrier group against a handful of fast boats will be a disaster

It was such a waste of plywood!

But sure, propaganda has its value.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/iran-shows-off-in-giant-attack-on-mock-aircraft-carrier-1a00f16d1853

Junkyard Tom

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It was such a waste of plywood!

But sure, propaganda has its value.

Perhaps they were inspired by one of the US's own war games, set in the Persian Gulf, where the bad guys were commanded by retired US Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper who adopted an asymmetric strategy.

Unfortunately for the US Navy Gen. Van Riper, in a preemptive strike, managed to launch a 'massive salvo of cruise missiles that destroyed sixteen warships ... An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel'.

Source.

AbusesToilets

It would be interesting to hear what the legal angle the US would claim to operate under if it enacted a blockade and intercepted the Iranian vessels. Are they official Iranian Naval ships or merely flagged in Iran?

IrishTrajan

Gatling wrote: »

You have miss read this .
The only reason Russia is selling the SS300 system has nothing to do with Ukraine or Russia 's actions in Ukraine,
Iran has been on the list to get the S300 missles for 3/4 years at least .
Any how this is aimed at the Arab coalition currently bombing Iranian sponsored groups in Yemen .
Here 's the kicker this may piss off the Israelis to a degree ,
But Iran hasnt taken a delivery of any S300's and seem how well versed the Israeli special forces are at finding and stopping weapons shipments around the globe I'd wouldn't be at all suprised if they ended up been put on display in tel aviv at some stage.
With the added bonus of an Israeli /Saudi group working on an Iran solution pretty soon

Considering the U.S. has an aircraft carrier heading into the Gulf to stop Iran from shipping weapons to the Houthi, I don't think this will make much of a difference.

On topic:

Some S300 variants outperform the US Patriots, but they're quite unlikely to be of any use against US or Israeli strikes. The S300 was originally built in the late 70s, and the U.S. now has F22s in operation, with F35s close behind.

The Israelis have been told by the US quite a few times "don't do it, if it needs to be done, we'll do it" and I don't think the Israelis are stupid enough to try and pull it off themselves.

The US could rip the Iranian Air Force and Air Defences to shreds, and with their Carrier Group that operates in the Gulf capable of getting close to Iran's shores when Israel would need to leap frog to friendly countries (I believe there was talk of them going over the Med to Turkey and Azerbaijan where they'd base their strikes from) makes it more likely that Israel will let the US do it.


I genuinely hope Iran doesn't get nuclear weapons, and that if they do attempt to acquire them, the West turns their enrichment facilities into rubble.

IrishTrajan

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Perhaps they were inspired by one of the US's own war games, set in the Persian Gulf, where the bad guys were commanded by retired US Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper who adopted an asymmetric strategy.

Unfortunately for the US Navy Gen. Van Riper, in a preemptive strike, managed to launch a 'massive salvo of cruise missiles that destroyed sixteen warships ... An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel'.

Source.

If I recall correctly, the AEGIS platform allows for integrated carrier defences, whereas previously each ship had to analyze and defend from threats itself. I might be wrong.

IrishTrajan

Gringo180 wrote: »

They haven't threatened, but have done so. I dont see Palestine anywhere on the atlas.

Did you know that Palestine started the conflict on several occasions? That Israel coming out of the Gaza strip is the first "real" Palestine, since it was Jordan who occupied the West Bank up until 1967?

El_Duderino 09

I know the Iranians are criticised for arming one side or another in these conflicts but that's exactly what any regional power would do.

Imagine if Iran invaded Mexico and Peru on the pretence of self defense. After that more civil wars break out in central and south America and Iran was openly helping one side or the other. Would anyone fault the US for getting involved in those wars? It would be completely reasonable to try to influence the outcome of a war in your geopolitical neighbourhood.

With that said I don't trust the Iranian leadership. I understand that Iran has a large and educated middle class so I have to think that comfort and stability is important to those people in the medium term. It's not like Pakistan with millions of unemployed fighting age men with no education and no prospects.

It's worrying that they are getting this defence system alongside the nuclear weapon. I hope diplomacy prevails.

IrishTrajan

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's worrying that they are getting this defence system alongside the nuclear weapon. I hope diplomacy prevails.

They're not getting it alongside a nuclear weapon. The deal is, I believe, that Iran will halt its enrichment program for ten years in return for sanctions being lifted. If they attempt enriching, I presume they'll be sanctioned again.

The S300 isn't the most terrifying of defence systems, either. A significant boost to their current inventory, yes, but the Russians are already working on the S500 and have S400s in stock, so it's not exactly top of the line stuff.

BoJack Horseman

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Perhaps they were inspired by one of the US's own war games, set in the Persian Gulf, where the bad guys were commanded by retired US Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper who adopted an asymmetric strategy.

Unfortunately for the US Navy Gen. Van Riper, in a preemptive strike, managed to launch a 'massive salvo of cruise missiles that destroyed sixteen warships ... An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel'.

Source.

What a useless war game!

Hell, the Irish navy could cause significant damage to the US navy if the US navy deliberately sat there doing nothing & awaiting death!

At approximately the same time that Red had located Blue forces, operators of the Blue naval simulation were directed incorrectly to turn off all self-defense capabilities by a senior Naval Officer who was not in command of the simulated forces nor current in the scenario. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that destroyed sixteen warships while the JSAF simulator operators sat and watched without responding defensively or offensively

El_Duderino 09

IrishTrajan wrote: »

They're not getting it alongside a nuclear weapon. The deal is, I believe, that Iran will halt its enrichment program for ten years in return for sanctions being lifted. If they attempt enriching, I presume they'll be sanctioned again.

The S300 isn't the most terrifying of defence systems, either. A significant boost to their current inventory, yes, but the Russians are already working on the S500 and have S400s in stock, so it's not exactly top of the line stuff.

I'll have to defer to you on the technical details. Do you think Iran will honour that agreement and could it be enforced? I mean could they know if Iran were developing the technology in the background?

BoJack Horseman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'll have to defer to you on the technical details. Do you think Iran will honour that agreement and could it be enforced? I mean could they know if Iran were developing the technology in the background?

That's the rub.

There is almost zero verification of compliance, there was very little in the past, so past comparison is almost impossible with the IAEA frequently stonewalled.

That's why Israel are apoplectic.
There is no real permanent quid-pro-quo.

Obama's legacy drive will bear bad fruit.


(Courtesy of Washington post)

It was but a year and a half ago that Barack Obama endorsed the objective of abolition when he said that Iran’s heavily fortified Fordow nuclear facility, its plutonium-producing heavy-water reactor and its advanced centrifuges were all unnecessary for a civilian nuclear program. The logic was clear: Since Iran was claiming to be pursuing an exclusively civilian program, these would have to go.

Yet under the deal Obama is now trying to sell, not one of these is to be dismantled. Indeed, Iran’s entire nuclear infrastructure is kept intact, just frozen or repurposed for the length of the deal (about a decade). Thus Fordow’s centrifuges will keep spinning. They will now be fed xenon, zinc and germanium instead of uranium. But that means they remain ready at any time to revert from the world’s most heavily (indeed comically) fortified medical isotope facility to a bomb-making factory.

And upon the expiration of the deal, conceded Obama Monday on NPR, Iran’s breakout time to a nuclear bomb will be “almost down to zero,” i.e., it will be able to produce nuclear weapons at will and without delay.

And then there’s cheating. Not to worry, says Obama. We have guarantees of compliance: “unprecedented inspections” and “snapback” sanctions.

The inspection promises are a farce. We haven’t even held the Iranians to their current obligation to come clean with the International Atomic Energy Agency on their previous nuclear activities. The IAEA charges Iran with stonewalling on 11 of 12 issues.

The IAEA hasn’t been allowed to see the Parchin weaponization facility in 10 years. And the massive Fordow complex was disclosed not by the IAEA but by Iranian dissidents.

Nodin

Gatling wrote: »

This is true to a degree .
The US special forces carried out multiple operations against iranian naval forces in the same period .
In saying that Iran recently carried out a mock battle against a balsa wood minture carrier off its coast a few weeks back showing small craft apparently over whelming the mock carrier before it was sank .
What good it actually did the Iranians I don't know.
But a full carrier group against a handful of fast boats will be a disaster

Well, it does show they're no slackers in the optimism department.

karma_

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What a useless war game!

Hell, the Irish navy could cause significant damage to the US navy if the US navy deliberately sat there doing nothing & awaiting death!

Perhaps not as useless as you might imagine. The US a few years ago ran a wargame and one of their very talented generals used this among other less conventional methods to win for red team.

Junkyard Tom

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Obama's legacy drive will bear bad fruit.
(Courtesy of Washington post)

Using an opinion piece by pro-Israel, neoconservative Charles Krauthammer?

I guess we should now introduce opinion pieces by a neoconservative Iranian apparatchiks for balance.

Better to attempt to stick to facts than using doom-mongering as a pretext for another military disaster based on the opinions of discredited neocon losers.

BoJack Horseman

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Better to attempt to stick to facts than using doom-mongering as a pretext for another military disaster based on the opinions of discredited neocon losers.

You can hate on the hammer if you like.

But instead, demonstrate his innacuracy?

You seem certain its thin on facts, please demonstrate how....

Link is here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-iran-deal-anatomy-of-a-disaster/2015/04/09/11bdf9ee-dee7-11e4-a1b8-2ed88bc190d2_story.html

Junkyard Tom

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

You seem certain its thin on facts, please demonstrate how....

It is not the job of others to refute every random opinion that can be dug up. You'd first have to provide evidence that there are any facts at all in the opinion piece for there to be something to be demonstrated wrong.

If you'd like to take the time to check the veracity of Krauthammer's opinions* and return to the discussion with them then feel free.

*inasmuch as neocon prophesying can be posthumously proved to be anything other than the usual WMD doom-mongering that was used to underpin the Iraq invasion in 2003.

Gringo180

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Did you know that Palestine started the conflict on several occasions? That Israel coming out of the Gaza strip is the first "real" Palestine, since it was Jordan who occupied the West Bank up until 1967?

You have just contradicted yourself in your first two sentences.

According to the U.N and international law, the West Bank belongs to the Palestinians along with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Dannyboy83

hfallada wrote: »

I think Israel is ****ting it financial. If Iran makes peace with the US. Its basically peace in the Middle, bar ISIS and the Syrian Civil war. But if Iran enters the 21st Century and becomes a more normal country. Plus there is a huge push within Europe to put an end to the Palestine-Israeli Issue. If Palestine becomes a legit country, which I think is actually years away for once.

I think you can see Israel very nervous, as the endless US money might become tight. Plus all the special Israel US deals on trade/Emigration might be scaled back. When few countries have a favourable opinion about your country and its goods, your economy is extremely fragile.

I have the feeling that if the Iranian thaw had come at the start of Obama's first term, and it had 8 years to solidify, it could hold, or at least be harder to reverse.
But from the limited commentary I've read, they don't seem optimistic about the survival of the US/Cuban thaw, given the the current presidential contenders, i.e. Hillary the Hawk or a Republican Hawk, which I assume makes the US/Iranian prospects even more remote?

El_Duderino 09

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

That's the rub.

There is almost zero verification of compliance, there was very little in the past, so past comparison is almost impossible with the IAEA frequently stonewalled.

That's why Israel are apoplectic.
There is no real permanent quid-pro-quo.

Obama's legacy drive will bear bad fruit.

I'm not having a go at your opinion but when I read 'here's the rub' I think Fox News is involved in the opinion formation process.

Obama got Iran and the US back on speaking terms. The last few presidents have just told Iran they are very naughty boys. I imagined George Bush as Scrappy Doo, saying 'let me at them uncle Scrooby!' All the while Iran were building their nuclear technology.

The idea that this can be all Obama's fault is fairly silly since he's the first one to actually lift the lid and see what's inside.

BoJack Horseman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm not having a go at your opinion but when I read 'here's the rub' I think Fox News is involved in the opinion formation process.

Obama got Iran and the US back on speaking terms. The last few presidents have just told Iran they are very naughty boys. I imagined George Bush as Scrappy Doo, saying 'let me at them uncle Scrooby!' All the while Iran were building their nuclear technology.

The idea that this can be all Obama's fault is fairly silly since he's the first one to actually lift the lid and see what's inside.

What was innacurate about my post?

El_Duderino 09

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What was innacurate about my post?

I didn't say there was anything inaccurate about it.

The Krauthaumer article which follows is a unlikely to add credibility to anything as it's an attack on a particular person rather than an assessment of the situation. It could be accurate but accuracy would be a happy coincidence to the author. CK, not yourself