Iran conflict?

[Super-Rye]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

^^^

Isn't that kind of like playing chicken with a buick, when I'm on a 10 speed? It just doesn't make sense to me!?!?!

Thus suggesting Iran has something up their sleeves. I don't like it one bit, don't have a good feeling about this.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

I don't understand why the Iranians didn't just give the sailors back.....what were they thinking? Something long the lines of "I'm going to make a point of this, keep them locked up, and in the meantime give the Americans a reason to come over and kick my ass"?????

You had to see something like this happening when they were first arrested...

It's much more calculated than that. If they wanted conflict, they would have had some sort of aggression toward American forces; because of the American policy of zero diplomacy with Iran, that would have necessitated conflict. But because the troops are British, they know that they're safe from the US until Britain first declares war, and Britain is a long way off from doing that: not only is Britain generally more diplomatic, Iran heard the cries of the need for a measured response from the west (including Britain) in regards to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Britain is unlikely to escalate the situation unless it looks like the prisoners will come to harm. Perhaps this is an attempt to get a bargaining chip to secure the release of the IRG operatives, or to try to force a negotiation in regards to the disputed waterway.

[FlamesAddiction]

It's probably Iranian propaganda. I bet it turns out to be nothing.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by Super-Rye

Thus suggesting Iran has something up their sleeves. I don't like it one bit, don't have a good feeling about this.

Well they certainly would not be a walk in the park like Iraq, that's for sure. Especially with the American military tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. I think if it ever came down to an attack Iran would likely start lobbing missiles into Israel and maybe American positions in Iraq. I wonder what it would mean for the rest of the region though as Iran is primarily Shia and is seen as a growing concern to the majority Shi'ite populated Middle East. But then Israel would certainly be drawn into the conflict so who knows what the other Muslim states would do.

Interesting scenario for sure...

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by FlamesAllTheWay

Well they certainly would not be a walk in the park like Iraq, that's for sure. Especially with the American military tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. I think if it ever came down to an attack Iran would likely start lobbing missiles into Israel and maybe American positions in Iraq. I wonder what it would mean for the rest of the region though as Iran is primarily Shia and is seen as a growing concern to the majority Shi'ite populated Middle East. But then Israel would certainly be drawn into the conflict so who knows what the other Muslim states would do.

Interesting scenario for sure...

I agree. It would not be a walk in the park at all. Iran has more than twice the population. If 200k+ U.S. soldiers cannot control 30m Iraqis, then they have no hope of controling 60m+ Iranians. Not to mention, their miliary has not been hampered by continuous sanctions and airstrikes for 12 years. I also believe that their military is the most advanced in the Middle East (besides Israel of course). Their leader also seems more popular than Hussein did in Iraq. That means they might have more will to fight.


Israel has shown remarkable restraint in the past though, so unless they started taking high casualties, I think they would hunkerdown.

[Daradon]

No new news over the last little while?

Although certain (admittedly many fewer than a few years ago) members of the U.S. administration have wanted a war like this, it would be a bad idea for them, espcially right now when they have neither Iraq nor Afghanistan completely under control. I think a war wth Iran now could cause a more global conflageration. Britain and the U.S. would simply need more allies, and the other nations in the middle east would most like help their neighbors, if not with direct support than the use of their borders, sponsored terrorism etc.

It would get ugly real quick.

[RatherDashing]

Here's another article related to the situation:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news..._exit_strategy

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I agree. It would not be a walk in the park at all. Iran has more than twice the population. If 200k+ U.S. soldiers cannot control 30m Iraqis, then they have no hope of controling 60m+ Iranians. Not to mention, their miliary has not been hampered by continuous sanctions and airstrikes for 12 years. I also believe that their military is the most advanced in the Middle East (besides Israel of course). Their leader also seems more popular than Hussein did in Iraq. That means they might have more will to fight.


Israel has shown remarkable restraint in the past though, so unless they started taking high casualties, I think they would hunkerdown.

It wouldn't take that many troops to win a war with Iran. The US and Britain would have no delusions of actually occupying Iran they would go in, bomb the poo out of the entire country's infrastructure turning it into an economic lightweight with no hope of recovery in the next 20 yrs, and then they would get the hell out of there and let the Ayatollah or whoever is left clean up the mess.... The big problem becomes the massive increase of terrorism all over the world thereafter...

[Flash Walken]

One thing preventing rash military alternatives to diplomacy with Iran is the staggering amount of Oil that is fed into China from Iran.

[Hack&Lube]

Supposedly, Iran planned this in retaliation for many of their generals defecting.

In any case, they are seeing if the dog has any teeth. So far, none.

[Cowperson]

Vice Admiral Style said the British boarding party, in two inflatable boats, had boarded an Indian-flagged naval vessel on March 23 after observing it unloading cars.

He said the boarding took place at these coordinates: 29 degrees 50.36 minutes north, 048 degrees 43.08 minutes east. That placed it 1.7 nautical miles — around two miles on land — inside Iraqi waters.

In diplomatic contacts, Iran had provided Britain with an initial set of coordinates for the position of the boats that placed the incident in Iraqi waters.

“We pointed this out to them on Sunday in diplomatic contacts,” Vice Admiral Style said. “After we did this they then provided a second set of coordinates that places the incident in Iranian waters” over two nautical miles away from where they were said to be by Britain, he said.

“It is hard to understand a legitimate reason for this change of coordinates,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/28/wo...hp&oref=slogin

Cowperson

[Daradon]

Breaking News: (if no one else has heard it?)

CTV Newsnet just reported that there has been another increase of American vessels in the region. Apparently 2 aircraft carriers are there now, largest build up in the region since the 2003 strike on Iraq

Russian (if you want to take their word for it) analysists have predicted an American airstike on Iran within 2 weeks.

There is also a large Turkish force on the northern Iraq border.

[Jayems]

Wwiii

^ thats suppposed to say W W 3, but the anti-caps thing is killing me.

[Flash Walken]

here's a quote from a thread I posted about Iran a few weeks ago:

The Stennis will likely arrive in the Persian Gulf region in mid- to late February. This will give it about a two-month overlap with the Eisenhower which, since its arrival in the region in late October, has been moving between the Gulf, the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean.

The Stennis' deployment to the Persian Gulf has been scheduled for months, so its movement there is not in response to anything Iran has recently done. The timing just happens to coincide with the recent U.S. decision to increase its force in Iraq and with statements from U.S. diplomats about increasing pressure on Tehran.

If the United States does decide to surge its naval capacity in the region and intensify its military pressure on Iran, the Eisenhower could remain in the Gulf past April. Meanwhile, the USS Harry S. Truman, which recently finished a round of flight deck certifications in the Atlantic in preparation for its 2007 deployment, could deploy as early as April. This could put the Truman in the Persian Gulf with the Stennis and the Eisenhower, should it stay over, placing three U.S. carrier strike groups in the region.

Even if the Eisenhower returns and the Truman moves into the region, the United States would demonstrate its ability to maintain two carriers in one place for an extended period of time. However, if this potential surge goes beyond three carrier strike groups, the USS Nimitz and the USS Roosevelt -- like the Reagan -- are at stages in their operational cycles at which they could be deployed on relatively short notice if needed.

The United States could have six carriers deployed to the Persian Gulf relatively quickly if it wanted to. If that were to occur, Tehran would certainly have reason to be concerned.

edit: this should also push turkey over the top for EU membership.

[tripin_billie]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

here's a quote from a thread I posted about Iran a few weeks ago:



edit: this should also push turkey over the top for EU membership.

Yeah, true. If this comes to blows and Turkey gets involved against Iran, they could gain some more political allies in Europe. But, on the other hand, the Turkish troops are more likely in Northern Iraq to launch strikes against any revolutionary Kurds.

[Daradon]

Just heard John Bolton talk, sounds like air strikes are immiment, waiting to see how or how long this UK hostage deal turns out.

[Flash Walken]

So are we taking bets on when the air raids begin?

I'm going to say April 2nd, perfect timing with the end of Norouz, turks may be more inclined to begin fighting then as well. Maybe they want to send a message about Iranian independence though, and will start april 1st?

[LouCypher]

The risk to the world economy and availability of Oil is pretty big though I think the US is becoming more confident in the resources that it can acquire if need be. Scary thought about the can of worms this will open up if action against Iran is taken, the lack of foresight over the well being of any countrys own citizens in the event of another escalation and potential war in this region shows how Oil has far surpased the value of human life.

[TheDragon]

I just don't think anything is going to happen with Iran right now. It's too much of a powder keg for the US to just head in under the "Shock And Awe Round II" banner.

[Azure]

CaptainCrunch, why can't the Brits just do a snatch and grab?

Or will the security be high strung, massive reinforcements etc, etc?