Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Iran Conflict Question?

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Please only post here if you have some knowledge of international relations

    Questions:

    Do you think a war is going to start involving Iran?:

    How do you think it will 'play out'?:

    What are the key signs that have made you believe of an impending conflict?:

    I appreciate this is a somewhat sensitive topic so please be mature.

    - Adam
    • 30 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    No one here is going to be able to tell you if war is going to happen or not. The US has been trying to convince Israel not to strike by offering them various weapons systems and Israel is increasing their tanker capacity as well as developing new bunker busting munitions so something is in the works.

    If it will turn into war or not we don't know. Currently there is no proof that Iran is actually working on a nuclear weapon, just research into triggering mechnasisms and theoretical stuff. If more concrete evidence turns up then the chance of war will become all the more likely.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I think it's a possibility on the agenda, the US haven't completely dismissed it but they wouldn't want it.

    If there was a war, the US would, in a way, lose. That's not to say the Iranian fundamentalist regime would win (far from it, they'd be crushed), but that the US would be unable to occupy and control Iran successfully. They'd eventually be forced out by insurgents, leaving after building a few bases and a government they're relatively happy with is in power in Tehran.

    I'd say the biggest sign the option is still on the table is that the US hasn't intervened in Syria yet.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I think it's a possibility on the agenda, the US haven't completely dismissed it but they wouldn't want it.

    If there was a war, the US would, in a way, lose. That's not to say the Iranian fundamentalist regime would win (far from it, they'd be crushed), but that the US would be unable to occupy and control Iran successfully. They'd eventually be forced out by insurgents, leaving after building a few bases and a government they're relatively happy with is in power in Tehran.

    I'd say the biggest sign the option is still on the table is that the US hasn't intervened in Syria yet.
    They are happy with the current regime. The medievalists keep Iran backwards and poor, as opposed to being the dominant power in the region.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ferdowsi)
    The medievalists keep Iran backwards and poor
    The same was the case for Saddam in Iraq, but the US still opposed him once he'd outlived his usefulness to them. Same with Marcos in the Phillippines towards the end of his rule.

    Iran, regardless of its government's lack of capability, remains an irritant for the US - it's a gaping space in the Middle East that they don't own. They can't get at its resources, they can't put military bases there, and its an ideological hole in the dam, so to speak.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Do you think a war is going to start involving Iran?

    In 1953, there was a coup to overthrow the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and to give more power to the Shah. This coup was planned together with the CIA and MI6. The reason for this was because Mosaddegh was a socialist and wanted to nationalize Iranian oil, this would've obviously hurt Western countries. Fastfoward 25 years, we have the Islamic revolution. This happened because the Iranian population got tired with the Shah screwing them over boom you now have the current regime. By the way, the and putting Western interest over Iranian interest as well like most dictators, violating civil liberties. Now, here comes Islamist Khomeini who took advantage of Iranians anti-Shah thus anti-Western sentiments as well as appealing to their religious backgrounds and current regime is resembling what happened to Shah in the late 1970s, Iranians are starting to grow tired of the regime and have protested multiple times. What's the lesson that the US have learned here? You can't maintain puppet regimes and it'll eventually come back to bite you in the ass.

    Moving on, Iran has a relatively strong military, much more stronger than Iraq ever was. According to global firepower, Iran is ranked 12th in military capabilities. As well as this, we have to take into consideration that Iranians are very patriotic even though they don't like their current regime. Unlike Iraq, we won't see Iranians cheering on removal of the regime. This is because in comparison to Saadam, Khamenei is an angel. The number of killings and human rights abuse Saadam did to Iraqis can't be compared to what Khamenei is doing to Iranians.

    Taking into consideration, this means that unlike the Iraq war where the US sent around 150,000, we can expect at least up to 500,000 - 1,000,000.troops to be sent. The Iraq war cost around $1 trillion dollars, this war if it does happen, will cost $2 trillion - $3 trillion. Now, when George Bush was planning on invading in Iran according to some official documents it was meant to be a 2 year stay and a couple billions in cost (so we can't say the US will ignore the economics of the war and use Iraq as an example when the US weren't aware of the economics of a war with Iraq). As well this, as you know, worldwide economies were hit with a recession and are just starting to improve. The US is in a lot of debt at the moment. Now, people may think that this cost could be reimbursed through oil. But, that's just unlikely. To bring up the Iraq war again, the US lost out on oil contracts to Chinese/Russian companies. Source. Also, even if they did get the oil it would be US companies not US government and the US government would only see a fraction of that money.

    Both Russia and China have a vested interest in Iran both economically and politically. And they both sit at the UN security council. They would, most likely, be against a war with Iran. Although Iran will most likely attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz, the US will most likely be able to counter it before it does much damage to the word economy. If Russia and China don't intervene and help Iran immediately then cutting of their imports to these countries should get their attention and give them more reasons to intervene.

    Obama's intention at this stage is unclear. As the president of the united states, he has to pressure Iran into allowing conclusive investigation into their nuclear ambitions. Hence, he has to be seem as though he doesn't rule out a war with Iran. However, as a democrat and this being election year, he also has to seem as though he wouldn't go to war with Iran. Although, he doesn't have to push this very much considering the alternative GOP candidates. This is why he seems to be making contradictory statements.

    Netanyahu's intention at this stage is to pressure America into pressing Iran to stop their nuclear capabilities. This is why he has to make it seem like his pro-war. Although a nuclear Iran, wouldn't bomb Israel (who will have more nuclear weapons), it's never a good idea to allow your enemy access to such weapons. As well as this, Iran is known for funding terrorist groups that hurt Israel.

    Khamenei's intention is to reduce anti-Islamic government sentiments by increasing anti-western sentiments. In Iran in 2009, there were massive amounts of protesting happening over the election. As I stated earlier, the people are growing tired of the current Iranian regime. This is why he has to get his puppet Ahmadinejad to stir up Israel/USA. But, he doesn't want Iran to go to war because he knows he'll be defeated if this happens. This is why he has to allow a little progress and reduce chance of war.

    How do you think it will 'play out'?:

    In my opinion, there are only two realistic scenarios.

    A) The US grow tired of Iran's delaying and prepare for war or the economic sanctions increase and start hurting Iran thus forcing Iran to corporate.

    B) The US bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.

    A full blown out war with Iran is unrealistic and undesirable. For all the faults US may have and many they do, they aren't imperialistic for the sake of being imperialistic. After all, wasn't it Kissinger who invented the term "realpolitik'"

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: March 23, 2012
New on TSR

Find out what year 11 is like

Going into year 11? Students who did it last year share what to expect.

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.