What can be done? Iran

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

In addition, I think Iran would discover quickly how few "Islamic" friends it really has.

The Israeli's and the American's aren't the only ones who don't want a nuclear-armed Iran. Egypt and Saudi would have to consider arming themselves similarly if it ever came to that. Neither of those governments would probably be put out if Israel ended the threat for them.

Cowperson

Exactly. Syria is aligned with Iran simply due its own isolation and as a counter-weight to Western opprobium. But to think that Syrians would actually risk anything for Iran... unlike the rest of the "Middle East" (sans Israel), Iran is neither Arab nor Sunni, so it's very much an "outsider" as well...

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But in the case of a conventional invasion, or even a mass increase in tempo concerning missile launches, I'm pretty sure that Israel wouldn't concern itself with the preservation of civillian lives. Israel didn't fight a total war in 2006, they almost treated it like a police action.

I will give credit, Hezbollah fought a smart war by hiding in schools and hospitals and in one case a UN food warehouse. They painted vehicles in red cross colors to transport their "Soldiers" around.

You can bet that if Israel was to fight a we don't care, we're here to destroy the threat on our terms war, the result would be far bloodier then 2006.

You're right about the missile threat from Iran, and the possibility of Iran using chemical weapons does loom fairly large. I would expect that before any conventional mission got underway that Israel would take out Iran's air assets then try to destroy as many of the mobile launch systems that they can find.

Plus if Iran did use Chemical weapons, Israel would probably classify it as the use of weapons of mass destruction, and under their rules of engagment would retalliate with limited nuclear weapons. Probably smaller bombs dropped from aircraft on railway crossings and road crossings as a warning.

A very good assessment Captain, and you're probably right on these accounts.

[Pastiche]

Iran's ties to the rest of the Islamic world are tenuous at best being the singular Shia theocracy.

Striking the nuclear facilities at this point would be a key strategic misstep toward galvanizing the militant wing of the government at just a time when it is most weakened.

[SeeBass]

I would think that a majority of the countries that are worried about Iran are hoping for an internal driven regime change first, before an outside attack strengthens the current regimes position within its own people.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Iran's ties to the rest of the Islamic world are tenuous at best being the singular Shia theocracy.

Striking the nuclear facilities at this point would be a key strategic misstep toward galvanizing the militant wing of the government at just a time when it is most weakened.

Which begs the question is it work waiting until they fall from the inside?

Israel won't wait.

[sixpacked]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNew...639096-ap.html

It's ridiculous comments like these from people in power, which lead to the belief that Iran is unstable.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Azure

Which begs the question is it work waiting until they fall from the inside?

Israel won't wait.

That my friend is the million dollar question.
My guess is they do know their timeline on an Iranian bomb.

[Pastiche]

Which begs the question is it work waiting until they fall from the inside?

Israel won't wait.

Israel will wait if it's in their strategic interest to.

Beyond that, the window to strike their nuclear facilities has probably closed. As it's now widely thought that there are secret facilities in operation. Unless Israel could within a high confidence interval successfully destroy all refining facilities, a strike would be against their interests as they would not snuff out the nuclear program and would stoke condemnation across the region.

A better question would be how likely would a nuclear attack on Israel be under the following scenarios: 1) Iran obtains nuclear bomb with no strike from Israel and is still seen as an international paraiah or 2) Iran obtains nuclear with a strike from Israel and is now vindicated.

The other key issue in the equation is the shape of Iran moving forward. Is Iran moving to be more militant in the future or less? It's a good question. Urban areas of Iran have seen broad liberalizing social change about as fast as it can happen in the past 25 years. Will that continue? A less religious Iran is a much more friendly Iran.

[Azure]

Or if you look at from the other side, removing the militant wing completely and letting the more socially friendly faction take charge might be beneficial.

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by Azure

Or if you look at from the other side, removing the militant wing completely and letting the more socially friendly faction take charge might be beneficial.

What do you mean removing the militant wing?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

What do you mean removing the militant wing?

If the US were to get actively involved with toppling the government and supporting a more west friendly, less militant version.

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by Azure

If the US were to get actively involved with toppling the government and supporting a more west friendly, less militant version.

You mean like Iraq War Pt. 2 only this time against against a country that isn't teetering on failed state status?

My point is that there's no hope in hell that the U.S. will have ANY influence over Iranian domestic politics beyond entrenching the ruling regime.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

You mean like Iraq War Pt. 2 only this time against against a country that isn't teetering on failed state status?

My point is that there's no hope in hell that the U.S. will have ANY influence over Iranian domestic politics beyond entrenching the ruling regime.

More or less.

I'm not saying it would be successful. Just saying that its an option.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

You mean like Iraq War Pt. 2 only this time against against a country that isn't teetering on failed state status?

My point is that there's no hope in hell that the U.S. will have ANY influence over Iranian domestic politics beyond entrenching the ruling regime.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I think on the eve of a popular uprising, Obama could give the rebels moral support with an appropriately timed speech.

[blankall]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...rthquakes.html

All I have to say is go Green movement. The vast majority of Iranians I have met are extremely educated people. The more these clerics pull this crap, the sooner their demise will come.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by blankall

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...rthquakes.html

All I have to say is go Green movement. The vast majority of Iranians I have met are extremely educated people. The more these clerics pull this crap, the sooner their demise will come.

Yup. Adapting Islamic codes will save you from a falling piece of cement when the earthquakes hit. Hope that works out well for them.

The only sub-surface movement that will ever happen resulting from women dressed in revealing clothing will take place in my pants, and rightfully so.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by blankall

I think you've missed my point. I was responding to the point that Syria/Hezbollah/Hamas are an effective alliance.

I was using this example to illustrate how militarily weak Syria has become. I was not commenting on Iran in any way.

If you read my previous post, I agree with you on the threat of the Iranian missiles:

"I wonder if Israel would get involved in this, well directly anyway. Iran isn't nuclear yet but they do have a solid collection of missiles to lob at Israel."

You have to wonder if even one of them would make it threw arguably the best missile defense system on the planet.

[Cowperson]

An Iranian ayatollah today apparently claiming that attractive women are responsible for earthquakes.

Attractive women who wear makeup, snub traditional Islamic attire and dress "inappropriately" incite extramarital sex, which causes more earthquakes, a hard-line Iranian cleric has claimed.
Ayatollah Kazem Sedighitold was reported by an Iranian newspaper saying recently that these women are to blame for the country's calamities, the U.K.'s Daily Telegraph reports:

"Many women who dress inappropriately ... cause youths to go astray, taint their chastity and incite extramarital sex in society, which increases earthquakes ... We have no way but conform to Islam to ward off dangers."

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/b...ic-claims.aspx

I do not think it would be a good idea to arm this guy with a nuclear weapon.

Cowperson

[VladtheImpaler]

Sir, I believe you are guilty of



Look a few posts up.

[IliketoPuck]

I guess that explains the earthquakes in California.

Adult Film Industry = Many Earthquakes

The logic is airtight.