Iran attacks the BBC
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Organ
I think a ground invasion of Iran would be the most awful conflict since the end of WW2 - with massive losses on the side of NATO.
100k men is the estimate for an invasion of Iran. Not sure if this is just fighting personnel if it is then the total would be over 200k. God knows what the cost would be.
But even so in the long run that will be better than allowing a nuclear armed Iran.
Original post by Aj12
100k men is the estimate for an invasion of Iran. Not sure if this is just fighting personnel if it is then the total would be over 200k. God knows what the cost would be.
But even so in the long run that will be better than allowing a nuclear armed Iran.
But even so in the long run that will be better than allowing a nuclear armed Iran.
An Israeli/US attack will disrupt the global oil supply and make the Stock Market Crash of 2008 look like pansy work by comparison (something the USA cannot afford) when a oil sky-rockets to something like 500$ per barrell. The regime's strategy will be a devastating scorched earth policy. Iran sells loads of oil, the instability will drive prices through the roof and most importantly Iran effectively control the straits of Hormuz - even with the US Navy (which is there as we speak); Iran could mine the straits instantly and block it off for weeks - remember the majority of seabourne oil passes through the straits.
On June 29, 2008, the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Ali Mohammed Jafari, said that if Iran were attacked by Israel or the United States, it would seal off the Strait of Hormuz, to wreak havoc in oil markets. This statement followed other more ambiguous threats from Iran's oil minister and other government officials that a Western attack on Iran would result in turmoil in oil supply.
In response, Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, commander of the U.S. 5th Fleet stationed in Bahrain across the Persian Gulf from Iran, warned that such an action by Iran would be considered an act of war, and that the U.S. would not allow Iran to effectively hold hostage nearly a third of the world's oil supply.[7]
On July 8, 2008, Ali Shirazi, a mid-level clerical aide to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was quoted by the student news agency ISNA as saying to Revolutionary Guards, "The Zionist regime is pressuring White House officials to attack Iran. If they commit such a stupidity, Tel Aviv and U.S. shipping in the Persian Gulf will be Iran's first targets and they will be burned."[8]
An article in International Security contended that Iran could seal off or impede traffic in the Strait for a month, and an attempt by the U.S. to reopen it would likely escalate the conflict.]
In response, Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, commander of the U.S. 5th Fleet stationed in Bahrain across the Persian Gulf from Iran, warned that such an action by Iran would be considered an act of war, and that the U.S. would not allow Iran to effectively hold hostage nearly a third of the world's oil supply.[7]
On July 8, 2008, Ali Shirazi, a mid-level clerical aide to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was quoted by the student news agency ISNA as saying to Revolutionary Guards, "The Zionist regime is pressuring White House officials to attack Iran. If they commit such a stupidity, Tel Aviv and U.S. shipping in the Persian Gulf will be Iran's first targets and they will be burned."[8]
An article in International Security contended that Iran could seal off or impede traffic in the Strait for a month, and an attempt by the U.S. to reopen it would likely escalate the conflict.]
Also by bringing about western regime change, you don't discredit the regime, and are forevermore validating its legitimacy and making the decision for the fence sitters inside (and outside) Iran for them by pushing them into the laps of the regime. Foreign war on Iran will also eventually spell the end of Iran's territorial integrity with separatist claims popping up everywhere (check out the demographics of Iran). It is a crazy idea. An internal armed struggle is the only way there will be regime change. Nobody frankly has the stomach for the bloodbath that an invasion would be. The USA values human life - and thousands of dead troops would cause huge levels of anger in the USA - the public, congress and the current president would rather Iran get's nuclear weapons than launch an invasion. Considering there is no sign of any internal regime change - I think you have to get used to IRI having nuclear bombs. The only country crazy enough to launch an invasion is Israel - god knows what would happen then, WW3!? I hope none of this happens, especially to the Iranian people.
Don't write off an Iran invasion as just another cruise to victory - it would be mental - Iran has potentially millions of troops, fairly decent weapons and hezbollah, hamas and it's other proxies will go crazy and if Assad is still standing then so will Syria...if Israel is involved then it could be facing multiple invasions from Southern Lebanon, Syria, possibly Egypt - missiles flying in from Iran... Plus expect serious trouble in European cities with large muslim populations & politically active peope like London, Paris, Amsterdam and so on. No idea what Russia and China would do in your invasion as well! Don't forget that Iraq would explode into violence, remember how much influence Iran has in post-03 Iraq - what the hell is America meant to do if law and order breaks down in Iraq? Can hardly commit to a surge if you are meant to be taking out a capable military and a hostile Persian population!
Invading Iran = Bad Idea!
One way this issue could be resolved imo is if Israel decommissions it's own nuclear weapons - but this is never, never going to happen, it's much more likely Israel will use them against Iran.
(edited 12 years ago)
Why use "attack" instead of "criticise".
Original post by Schoolio93
dude just stop talking, we know that Iran is a great Power House. I am not Iranian but through following the news I can tell that USA fear Iran. Coz if that would not have been the case then USA could have easily started a war against Iran, but they know that the losses will be significant and the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Plus Iran has got a really strong army.
They just don't want to fight ANOTHER war right now, Iran does have a strong military, but it still would'nt stand up to the US for very long.
Yes the US would lose more men than they've lost previously, but that doesn't mean that they're scared of what Iran can do, they just don't want to waste lives.
Original post by Aj12
100k men is the estimate for an invasion of Iran. Not sure if this is just fighting personnel if it is then the total would be over 200k. God knows what the cost would be.
But even so in the long run that will be better than allowing a nuclear armed Iran.
But even so in the long run that will be better than allowing a nuclear armed Iran.
No I think we have had about enough of invading other peoples countries, and it is not just the invasion is it?Haven't we learnt anything from iraq and afghanistan? Not one of those conflicats was worth a single british life... It is trying to stablise the bloody place afterwards ,when even more of our soldiers will be lost.It doesn't help that the rules of engagement are so strict to prevent civilian casualties that we sacrifice our troops lives for it.
And what with the defence cuts and the dagos rattling their toothpicks about the falkland islands ,the communist tyrant in the whitehouse I think we should be very careful before invading anywhere else and keep our resources.
No I think in irans case, the British government need to ask themselves questions, is iran a direct threat, could they potentially land a nuclear tipped missile in our country, is protecting israel or involving ourselves in the middle east going to protect our own national security. We should be trying in the long term to be as energy independant as possible. The republican party in america for instance is advocating in the long term accessing americas huge natural resources and relying less on saudi and other middle eastern countries. I don't have any access to secret documents about Iran to judge if Iran is a true threat,just like I didn't with iraq.
If iran is, I think the us, (lets face it Britain is a shadow if it's former self militarily wise ,thanks to the successive leftist and liberal governments and now a kind of hybrid government) need to go in the direction of punishment airstrikes up to ,the policy of 'dehousing' the civilian population of iran using tomahawks missiles , and bombs. No civilian in the middle east is worth a single British or US soldiers life. Perhaps we need if there is no other option to test out a neutron bomb or small nuclear device to send a message to these bastards not to F with us.
British soldier just this week got kidnapped and killed by these scum and if the prime minister had any balls he would pull all our troops out tomorrow and if Afghanistan is such a scary threat turn it into a chuffing car park. If it isn't ,lets just admit Blair was a neo liberal nutcase with a god complex with ideas along with Bush of a modern christian crusade to convert people still beliving in medieval ideals. And cut our losses.
Original post by Ministerdonut
No I think we have had about enough of invading other peoples countries, and it is not just the invasion is it?Haven't we learnt anything from iraq and afghanistan? Not one of those conflicats was worth a single british life... It is trying to stablise the bloody place afterwards ,when even more of our soldiers will be lost.It doesn't help that the rules of engagement are so strict to prevent civilian casualties that we sacrifice our troops lives for it.
And what with the defence cuts and the dagos rattling their toothpicks about the falkland islands ,the communist tyrant in the whitehouse I think we should be very careful before invading anywhere else and keep our resources.
No I think in irans case, the British government need to ask themselves questions, is iran a direct threat, could they potentially land a nuclear tipped missile in our country, is protecting israel or involving ourselves in the middle east going to protect our own national security. We should be trying in the long term to be as energy independant as possible. The republican party in america for instance is advocating in the long term accessing americas huge natural resources and relying less on saudi and other middle eastern countries. I don't have any access to secret documents about Iran to judge if Iran is a true threat,just like I didn't with iraq.
If iran is, I think the us, (lets face it Britain is a shadow if it's former self militarily wise ,thanks to the successive leftist and liberal governments and now a kind of hybrid government) need to go in the direction of punishment airstrikes up to ,the policy of 'dehousing' the civilian population of iran using tomahawks missiles , and bombs. No civilian in the middle east is worth a single British or US soldiers life. Perhaps we need if there is no other option to test out a neutron bomb or small nuclear device to send a message to these bastards not to F with us.
British soldier just this week got kidnapped and killed by these scum and if the prime minister had any balls he would pull all our troops out tomorrow and if Afghanistan is such a scary threat turn it into a chuffing car park. If it isn't ,lets just admit Blair was a neo liberal nutcase with a god complex with ideas along with Bush of a modern christian crusade to convert people still beliving in medieval ideals. And cut our losses.
And what with the defence cuts and the dagos rattling their toothpicks about the falkland islands ,the communist tyrant in the whitehouse I think we should be very careful before invading anywhere else and keep our resources.
No I think in irans case, the British government need to ask themselves questions, is iran a direct threat, could they potentially land a nuclear tipped missile in our country, is protecting israel or involving ourselves in the middle east going to protect our own national security. We should be trying in the long term to be as energy independant as possible. The republican party in america for instance is advocating in the long term accessing americas huge natural resources and relying less on saudi and other middle eastern countries. I don't have any access to secret documents about Iran to judge if Iran is a true threat,just like I didn't with iraq.
If iran is, I think the us, (lets face it Britain is a shadow if it's former self militarily wise ,thanks to the successive leftist and liberal governments and now a kind of hybrid government) need to go in the direction of punishment airstrikes up to ,the policy of 'dehousing' the civilian population of iran using tomahawks missiles , and bombs. No civilian in the middle east is worth a single British or US soldiers life. Perhaps we need if there is no other option to test out a neutron bomb or small nuclear device to send a message to these bastards not to F with us.
British soldier just this week got kidnapped and killed by these scum and if the prime minister had any balls he would pull all our troops out tomorrow and if Afghanistan is such a scary threat turn it into a chuffing car park. If it isn't ,lets just admit Blair was a neo liberal nutcase with a god complex with ideas along with Bush of a modern christian crusade to convert people still beliving in medieval ideals. And cut our losses.
A nuclear armed Iran will be far far worse in the long run. Because it will lead to a nuclear exchange in the Middle East. You can pretty much bet on it. At least the Russians had some sense. A bunch of religous nut jobs who think God is on their side, god help us if they have nukes
Original post by Aj12
A nuclear armed Iran will be far far worse in the long run. Because it will lead to a nuclear exchange in the Middle East. You can pretty much bet on it. At least the Russians had some sense. A bunch of religous nut jobs who think God is on their side, god help us if they have nukes
If the threat is as you say (and again before I made my decision I would need to consult various experts on Iran,the region and talk to all the intelligence agencies), I struggle to see how a ground war is the best option. For one thing, I don't think even america has the money for another long protracted ground war and subsequent occupation when we try and put in a sympathetic government. And religion was also responsible for Blair and bush's mania in rather than seeing any intervention in middle east as a police action to find terrorists or as showing other potential rogue states what will happen to them if they mess with the west, ,they saw it was some kind of crusade.
Either targetted air strikes in a coalition to remove their capability , punishment air raids to get them to comply with the UN by hitting military facilities , then progressing to hitting utilities that provide electiricity for instance to their civilian population, clean water etc etc their shipping, or as a last option,which could also be used in an emergency to permanently remove the threat from iran we use a neutron bomb or tactical nuclear munitions to devastate the entire country but limit fallout.
Far better it is done as an international effort, than leaving it to israel to go to war with them, or saudi arabia (who also want Iran dealt with) .
Original post by Ministerdonut
If the threat is as you say (and again before I made my decision I would need to consult various experts on Iran,the region and talk to all the intelligence agencies), I struggle to see how a ground war is the best option. For one thing, I don't think even america has the money for another long protracted ground war and subsequent occupation when we try and put in a sympathetic government. And religion was also responsible for Blair and bush's mania in rather than seeing any intervention in middle east as a police action to find terrorists or as showing other potential rogue states what will happen to them if they mess with the west, ,they saw it was some kind of crusade.
Either targetted air strikes in a coalition to remove their capability , punishment air raids to get them to comply with the UN by hitting military facilities , then progressing to hitting utilities that provide electiricity for instance to their civilian population, clean water etc etc their shipping, or as a last option,which could also be used in an emergency to permanently remove the threat from iran we use a neutron bomb or tactical nuclear munitions to devastate the entire country but limit fallout.
Far better it is done as an international effort, than leaving it to israel to go to war with them, or saudi arabia (who also want Iran dealt with) .
Either targetted air strikes in a coalition to remove their capability , punishment air raids to get them to comply with the UN by hitting military facilities , then progressing to hitting utilities that provide electiricity for instance to their civilian population, clean water etc etc their shipping, or as a last option,which could also be used in an emergency to permanently remove the threat from iran we use a neutron bomb or tactical nuclear munitions to devastate the entire country but limit fallout.
Far better it is done as an international effort, than leaving it to israel to go to war with them, or saudi arabia (who also want Iran dealt with) .
I am not really suggesting that America go in alone. I would say do it as a full UN coalition or live with the consequences. Of course this is if and when we get irrefutable evidence of a nuclear weapons program.
I don't think a limited strike would work. Iran has a very impressive conventional missile program and Hezbollah is armed with some quite powerful missiles too. This would be hard to deal with as systems like the patriot missile defence don't work that well.
I don't even want to think about a nuclear strike of any kind.
Original post by Aj12
I am not really suggesting that America go in alone. I would say do it as a full UN coalition or live with the consequences. Of course this is if and when we get irrefutable evidence of a nuclear weapons program.
I don't think a limited strike would work. Iran has a very impressive conventional missile program and Hezbollah is armed with some quite powerful missiles too. This would be hard to deal with as systems like the patriot missile defence don't work that well.
I don't even want to think about a nuclear strike of any kind.
I don't think a limited strike would work. Iran has a very impressive conventional missile program and Hezbollah is armed with some quite powerful missiles too. This would be hard to deal with as systems like the patriot missile defence don't work that well.
I don't even want to think about a nuclear strike of any kind.
Who would want to be involved in this UN coalition?
Original post by Ministerdonut
we use a neutron bomb or tactical nuclear munitions to devastate the entire country but limit fallout.
Are you insane? What would we bomb anyway?
The actual nuclear sites are nearly impossible to disable from the air - even with nuclear bunker buster missiles
The fallout from these bombs could sprread to multiple countries and it would be an unacceptable use of force and a war crime.
Original post by Organ
Who would want to be involved in this UN coalition?
Depends. Saudi Arabia a couple of other Arab countries American the UK. Could no doubt get a number of other EU countries involved provided that there is proper proof of a nuclear weapons program. Could likely convince China and Russia to stay out of it depending on the circumstances at the time.
This is all speculation though, really with regards to this I am trying to predict what the world may be like in 3 or 4 years. For all we know the Islamic republic of Iran may well have fallen to internal pressures and outside sanctions.
Original post by Aj12
Depends. Saudi Arabia a couple of other Arab countries American the UK. Could no doubt get a number of other EU countries involved provided that there is proper proof of a nuclear weapons program. Could likely convince China and Russia to stay out of it depending on the circumstances at the time.
No way. Their populations would not allow it.
Can't see any Euro nations supporting it ~ imo the USA lost their political capital with Iraq (remember Spanish/Polish troops etc invaded) and Afghanistan has proven that most Euro nations have no intention of their troops being placed in harms way ... let alone against Iran.
Public opinion surveys conducted in 2006 in Iran's three neighboring countries of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey found large numbers of people favoring the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran and even greater numbers opposed to any American military action against Iran[481]
In February 2007, lawmakers from 56 member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, addressing Iran's nuclear program at a meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, urged "full respect for equal and inalienable rights for all nations to explore modern technologies including nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."[482]
Officials in several countries have voiced support for Iran in the on-going standoff with the US over its nuclear program. These include Iraq[483] Algeria[484] and Indonesia.[485] Turkey has expressed support for Iran's right to a nuclear program for peaceful energy production,[486] and along with Egypt has urged for a peaceful solution to the standoff.[487] Former President Vladimir Putin of Russia, while urging more transparency from Iran, has said that there is no objective evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.[488] On 11 September 2009, Prime Minister Putin opposed the use of force or further sanctions against Iran.[489]
Support for tough measures against Iran's nuclear program has fallen in 13 out of 21 Arab countries according to a new BBC World Service Poll.[490] According to a 2008 global poll of Arab public opinion, the Arab public does not appear to see Iran as a major threat and does not support international pressure to force Iran to curtail the program.[491] Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa echoed remarks made by chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, saying that Israel, not Iran, posed a nuclear threat to the Middle East.[492]
In February 2007, lawmakers from 56 member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, addressing Iran's nuclear program at a meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, urged "full respect for equal and inalienable rights for all nations to explore modern technologies including nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."[482]
Officials in several countries have voiced support for Iran in the on-going standoff with the US over its nuclear program. These include Iraq[483] Algeria[484] and Indonesia.[485] Turkey has expressed support for Iran's right to a nuclear program for peaceful energy production,[486] and along with Egypt has urged for a peaceful solution to the standoff.[487] Former President Vladimir Putin of Russia, while urging more transparency from Iran, has said that there is no objective evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.[488] On 11 September 2009, Prime Minister Putin opposed the use of force or further sanctions against Iran.[489]
Support for tough measures against Iran's nuclear program has fallen in 13 out of 21 Arab countries according to a new BBC World Service Poll.[490] According to a 2008 global poll of Arab public opinion, the Arab public does not appear to see Iran as a major threat and does not support international pressure to force Iran to curtail the program.[491] Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa echoed remarks made by chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, saying that Israel, not Iran, posed a nuclear threat to the Middle East.[492]
The Saudis would never invade Iran.
This is all speculation though, really with regards to this I am trying to predict what the world may be like in 3 or 4 years. For all we know the Islamic republic of Iran may well have fallen to internal pressures and outside sanctions.
Doubt it, the Mullahs are not going to leave, short of being forced out at gunpoint.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Aj12
This is all speculation though, really with regards to this I am trying to predict what the world may be like in 3 or 4 years. For all we know the Islamic republic of Iran may well have fallen to internal pressures and outside sanctions.
This is all speculation though, really with regards to this I am trying to predict what the world may be like in 3 or 4 years. For all we know the Islamic republic of Iran may well have fallen to internal pressures and outside sanctions.
This is a far more desirable scenario, a war with the Islamic Republic would be a disaster for all concerned, and as I've said many a time on here, the international community should immediately isolate the regime and place an oil embargo and other sanctions on it. It will fall shortly afterwards. This is what the Iranian Opposition has been saying for decades now.
Original post by Democracy
This is a far more desirable scenario, a war with the Islamic Republic would be a disaster for all concerned, and as I've said many a time on here, the international community should immediately isolate the regime and place an oil embargo and other sanctions on it. It will fall shortly afterwards. This is what the Iranian Opposition has been saying for decades now.
But how would Iran react to that?
They would mine the straits of hormuz and potentially block global oil supply for months, I'm not sure a bunch of desperate lunatics with proxies all over the middle east and control of the world's oil supply are going to sit back and just allow itself to collapse. By mining the straits - which they claim they will do - it is going to bring itself into a direct confrontation with the US 5th fleet in Bahrain and the other western navies in the region.
Iran is the second largest exporter to China, considering China's other oil sources (i.e. The Sudan) they are unlikely to care what the Mullahs do anyway - although that said, I'm not it is in China's interest to have a nuclear armed Iran either..but they could possibly be so reliant on Iran, they would put up with it.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/news/international/Iran_oil/index.htm
Original post by Democracy
This is a far more desirable scenario, a war with the Islamic Republic would be a disaster for all concerned, and as I've said many a time on here, the international community should immediately isolate the regime and place an oil embargo and other sanctions on it. It will fall shortly afterwards. This is what the Iranian Opposition has been saying for decades now.
Do the current sanctions include oil?
Do you know who buys Iranian oil?
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Democracy
This is a far more desirable scenario, a war with the Islamic Republic would be a disaster for all concerned, and as I've said many a time on here, the international community should immediately isolate the regime and place an oil embargo and other sanctions on it. It will fall shortly afterwards. This is what the Iranian Opposition has been saying for decades now.
Isn't this a bit hypocritical, considering you supported the invasion of Iraq?
Original post by Organ
No way. Their populations would not allow it.
Can't see any Euro nations supporting it ~ imo the USA lost their political capital with Iraq (remember Spanish/Polish troops etc invaded) and Afghanistan has proven that most Euro nations have no intention of their troops being placed in harms way ... let alone against Iran.
The Saudis would never invade Iran.
Doubt it, the Mullahs are not going to leave, short of being forced out at gunpoint.
Can't see any Euro nations supporting it ~ imo the USA lost their political capital with Iraq (remember Spanish/Polish troops etc invaded) and Afghanistan has proven that most Euro nations have no intention of their troops being placed in harms way ... let alone against Iran.
The Saudis would never invade Iran.
Doubt it, the Mullahs are not going to leave, short of being forced out at gunpoint.
I think they would given the consequences of a nuclear Iran and as I said absolute proof of a nuclear program.
I think they could easily manipulate their populations, bring up what a nuclear Iran would mean. Most of the other nations are terrified of the idea, just look at the Saudi Cables asking for the US to attack Iran.
Maybe, maybe not. I can only really go by what I hear from Democracy and what I hear in a few other places.
One or another Iran is going to have to be dealt with tbh.
Sanctions and internal uprising would be the far better option though.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by B-Man.
Isn't this a bit hypocritical, considering you supported the invasion of Iraq?
Yes, as a socialist I wholeheartedly supported Blair and Bush
What are you on about?Original post by Aj12
Do the current sanctions include oil?
No, because it would be quite a painful sanction (in the short term).
Original post by Organ
But how would Iran react to that?
They would mine the straits of hormuz and potentially block global oil supply for months, I'm not sure a bunch of desperate lunatics with proxies all over the middle east and control of the world's oil supply are going to sit back and just allow itself to collapse. By mining the straits - which they claim they will do - it is going to bring itself into a direct confrontation with the US 5th fleet in Bahrain and the other western navies in the region.
Iran is the second largest exporter to China, considering China's other oil sources (i.e. The Sudan) they are unlikely to care what the Mullahs do anyway - although that said, I'm not it is in China's interest to have a nuclear armed Iran either..but they could possibly be so reliant on Iran, they would put up with it.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/news/international/Iran_oil/index.htm
They would mine the straits of hormuz and potentially block global oil supply for months, I'm not sure a bunch of desperate lunatics with proxies all over the middle east and control of the world's oil supply are going to sit back and just allow itself to collapse. By mining the straits - which they claim they will do - it is going to bring itself into a direct confrontation with the US 5th fleet in Bahrain and the other western navies in the region.
Iran is the second largest exporter to China, considering China's other oil sources (i.e. The Sudan) they are unlikely to care what the Mullahs do anyway - although that said, I'm not it is in China's interest to have a nuclear armed Iran either..but they could possibly be so reliant on Iran, they would put up with it.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/news/international/Iran_oil/index.htm
I don't feel that the regime would get involved in any direct confrontational activity like mining the Straits of Hormoz, as that would mean the Mullahs' downfall is guaranteed (IRI cannot win against NATO). The regime will calculate that sanctions may or may not work, and for a few months will attempt to work around the sanctions, but in reality they will have no choice but to go. Khamenei would probably take off for Syria (if Assad's regime is still standing: unlikely at this stage) or possibly Russia.
Original post by Democracy
I don't feel that the regime would get involved in any direct confrontational activity like mining the Straits of Hormoz, as that would mean the Mullahs' downfall is guaranteed (IRI cannot win against NATO). The regime will calculate that sanctions may or may not work, and for a few months will attempt to work around the sanctions, but in reality they will have no choice but to go. Khamenei would probably take off for Syria (if Assad's regime is still standing: unlikely at this stage) or possibly Russia.
Considering that China is the largest importer of Iranian oil, and Iran is China's second largest source of oil - I can't see a resource junky country like China going along with US led sanctions, especially considering China is no-longer a country anybody can force into doing anything. Maybe China & India are the means by which the USA could isolate Iran, even in this changing world, American influence is still considerable - and I doubt India especially wants to see Iran swanning around with nukes. But for sanctions to be effective - then states like Russia, China and India have to go along with it. But considering Israel buys Iranian oil!! (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/04/israelstehranconnection) I'm not confident that a working boycott over such an important resource will ever be established.
I think the best people can hope for is to prevent the technology from reaching Iran to build nuclear weapons, if that fails then the West will probably have to contain a nuclear arms race in the middle east and possibly somebody wil have to completely destroy Hezbollah to prevent a dirty bomb (note the massive mushroom cloud banners at rallies all over Southern Lebanon). Invading Iran would be one hell of a horrific and destructive conflict, and it is one that I would hate to see.
An internal revolt isn't something I am confident that will happen before the bomb is built (and nobody is going to overthrow nuclear mullahs once they get the bomb tbh). I don't think the Mullahs will really care about killing thousands, hundreds of thousands of people - it isn't a Mubarak or Ben Ali (or Shah) , they will be more bloody than Assad (and considering there are Iranian units within Syria as we speak they will have had practice putting down demos) and will happily level cities etc in my opinion. Perhaps the regular army will revolt against things like the rep. guard or something (that is the only way I see a revoloution) athough I am no expert - I think the mullahs have been solidifying their position for decades and have a huge machinery to stifle opposition. Iran is a very young and pretty well educated population afaik, as well as mass unempolyment (hence textbook rev conditions) but I'm not sure what young people from North Tehran can really do against tanks, guns and possibly nukes.
(edited 12 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Politics Examples
- is afghanistan pronounced AF-ghanistan or af-ghani-STAN?
- Iran striking military bases in Pakistan. Thoughts?
- USA bombing Syria
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- Israel strikes Isfahan and other sites
- Shooting in Brussels. Shooter still at large.
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- Has anyone done the Persian GCSE?
- strike on iran consulate in Damascus
- UKCAT in 3 days done no revision or practice
- Terrorist NHS worker planned to bomb hospital
- electrical engineering or data science
- What's your favourite theme song/tune for a show?
- How do I convert from konour (iranian high school) grades to a levels
- Antifa activist murdered in NYC
- Podcast Recommendations Thread
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- what are good shows to watch?
- Is a revival of Zoroastrianism possible in Iran if their Islamist regime collapses?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
