🇮🇷 The Iran Thread II

Will the United States go to war with Iran in either 2012 or 2013?

  • Yes, definitely.

  • Possibly.

  • I dont know.

  • Probably not.

  • Definitely not.


Results are only viewable after voting.
Is anyone else disturbed by the constant drumbeat of war against Iran that we're constantly subjected to in the mainstream media? Over and over again, we're told about the supposed dire threat posed by a small country on the other side of the world, which has not attacked another nation in hundreds of years, which just happens to be sitting on top of a giant pool of oil in one of the most geostrategically important locations in the world. The idea that Iran represents some kind of threat is pounded into our heads on a daily basis, and the ability of corporate interests to manufacture consent from the population for a campaign of demonization against this official enemy would have made Orwell proud. Have we learned nothing from Iraq?

Lost in all this fretting about Iran gaining a nuclear weapon is the fact that the country is encircled by hostile states (that serve U.S. interests). You hear a lot of cynical talk about how a nuclear Iran would pose an "existential threat" to Israel. First, set aside for a second the fact that Israel has a non-declared arsenal of hundreds of nuclear weapons (politicians and the press certainly do. You almost never hear this mentioned in any mainstream media source). If Iran were to use nuclear weapons against Israel, it would be an act of collective suicide on the part of the ruling elite, because it would certainly result in a response that would, in Hillary Clinton's preferred terms, completely obliterate the country. You might not be in favour of Iran's ruling theocracy - I certainly am not - but its leaders are still rational actors. They are not insane enough to invite mass death upon their own nation.

Also, who here is aware of the U.S. history of meddling in Iran to serve its own interests? In 1953, the U.S. - that self-declared beacon of freedom and democracy, the "shining city on a hill" - supported a coup d'etat against the democratically-elected president of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddegh, after he threatened to nationalize the country's oil industry. In his place, the U.S. installed the autocratic Shah, a brutal dictator who ruled the country with an iron fist until the 1979 revolution, keeping the population at bay through the violent repression of his SAVAK secret police. Given that history, you can understand why the people of Iran lashed out at American influence. Also, following that, there is the little matter of the eight-year war Saddam Hussein's Iraq waged against Iran from 1980 to 1988, which killed millions of people. Saddam was at this point supported by the U.S. - remember that infamous footage of him shaking hands with special envoy Donald Rumsfeld?

All this has gone down the memory hole because it doesn't serve the interests of the energy companies, AIPAC, the military-industrial complex, politicians who know where their campaign contributions come from, and media pundits who know that the smart career move is demonizing Iran. Hence we have this bipartisan consensus against Iran, putting every action by the country in the worst popular light. As I said, I'm no fan of the theocratic regime there, but I also recognize a transparent attempt to intimidate a small, weak, yet resource-rich nation when I see it.
 
Well first of all Irans government is completely diffrent from its people I think this was proved after the last presidential election in Iran and I am sure that Irans government is very powerfull howelse would they be able to pull of all these stunts and the UN cant do anything I believe that Iran needs to be saved by its people.
 
Is anyone else disturbed by the constant drumbeat of war against Iran that we're constantly subjected to in the mainstream media? Over and over again, we're told about the supposed dire threat posed by a small country on the other side of the world, which has not attacked another nation in hundreds of years, which just happens to be sitting on top of a giant pool of oil in one of the most geostrategically important locations in the world. The idea that Iran represents some kind of threat is pounded into our heads on a daily basis, and the ability of corporate interests to manufacture consent from the population for a campaign of demonization against this official enemy would have made Orwell proud. Have we learned nothing from Iraq?

Lost in all this fretting about Iran gaining a nuclear weapon is the fact that the country is encircled by hostile states (that serve U.S. interests). You hear a lot of cynical talk about how a nuclear Iran would pose an "existential threat" to Israel. First, set aside for a second the fact that Israel has a non-declared arsenal of hundreds of nuclear weapons (politicians and the press certainly do. You almost never hear this mentioned in any mainstream media source). If Iran were to use nuclear weapons against Israel, it would be an act of collective suicide on the part of the ruling elite, because it would certainly result in a response that would, in Hillary Clinton's preferred terms, completely obliterate the country. You might not be in favour of Iran's ruling theocracy - I certainly am not - but its leaders are still rational actors. They are not insane enough to invite mass death upon their own nation.

Also, who here is aware of the U.S. history of meddling in Iran to serve its own interests? In 1953, the U.S. - that self-declared beacon of freedom and democracy, the "shining city on a hill" - supported a coup d'etat against the democratically-elected president of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddegh, after he threatened to nationalize the country's oil industry. In his place, the U.S. installed the autocratic Shah, a brutal dictator who ruled the country with an iron fist until the 1979 revolution, keeping the population at bay through the violent repression of his SAVAK secret police. Given that history, you can understand why the people of Iran lashed out at American influence. Also, following that, there is the little matter of the eight-year war Saddam Hussein's Iraq waged against Iran from 1980 to 1988, which killed millions of people. Saddam was at this point supported by the U.S. - remember that infamous footage of him shaking hands with special envoy Donald Rumsfeld?

All this has gone down the memory hole because it doesn't serve the interests of the energy companies, AIPAC, the military-industrial complex, politicians who know where their campaign contributions come from, and media pundits who know that the smart career move is demonizing Iran. Hence we have this bipartisan consensus against Iran, putting every action by the country in the worst popular light. As I said, I'm no fan of the theocratic regime there, but I also recognize a transparent attempt to intimidate a small, weak, yet resource-rich nation when I see it.

Actually no, I hear we are doing nothing as usual...that the actual policy will be to sit and wait.

You must watch only Fox...watch some real news like Bloomberg...
 
Iran has been drumming for war every Friday afternoon since the 79 revolution, we've only cared about that since they grew in strength following the War On Terror and Iraq War.
 
Actually no, I hear we are doing nothing as usual...that the actual policy will be to sit and wait.

You must watch only Fox...watch some real news like Bloomberg...

We're good at sitting and waiting.
 
yes we are, quite good....
 
yes we are, quite good....

Instead of sanctions why does the U.S. not get an embargo started on Iran's oil supply with itself and a number of its allies, it's perfectly feasible and possible to shift around oil supplies without any hassle. That would make them pay attention.
 
That is a question many ask, usually the answer is that would hurt the people...
 
Iranian pleads guilty in arms-smuggling case prosecuted in Mobile

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/06/iranian_pleads_guilty_in_arms-.html

MOBILE, Ala. -- An Iranian man pleaded guilty in federal court today toattempting to illegally export fighter jet or military aircraft fromthe United States to Iran, prosecutors said.

Omid Khalili facesup to 10 years in prison and up to a $1 million fine after he arrangeda deal for aircraft parts with an undercover agent, according to theU.S. Attorneys Office for the Southern District of Alabama.

Khaliliand another man, known only as Masun, had worked with the Iraniangovernment to procure military supplies, prosecutors said. The paircontacted the undercover agent in November.

Khalili was arrested in March after arriving in Miami, prosecutors said, and Masun has not been found by authorities.

Themen were looking for replacement parts for a military aircraft that wassold to Iran by the U.S. before the Iranian revolution in 1979,according to a news release from the U.S. Attorney's Office.

Tommy Loftis, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office, declined to say what type of aircraft was being discussed.

"Today'splea underscores the continuing threat posed by Iranian procurementnetworks," said David Kris, assistant attorney general for nationalsecurity, in a news release.

Khalili first sent an e-mail to the undercover agent and asked for prices on a list of aircraft parts, prosecutors said.

Theagent replied with the prices, and the defendants told the agent thatthe items would have to be shipped through another country to get toIran, prosecutors said.

More than $70,000 in cash payments weresent from a bank in the United Arab Emirates to a bank in Alabama as adown payment, prosecutors said.

The aircraft parts are listed onthe U.S. Munitions List and can't be exported from the country withouta license from the State Department, according to the U.S. Attorney'sOffice.

Also, the items can't be exported to Iran without aTreasury Department license because of the U.S. trade embargo on Iran,according to prosecutors. The men hadnt obtained any of the requiredlicenses.

Khalili and Masun were named in a nine-countindictment in January that included charges of conspiracy, moneylaundering, smuggling, and violations of the Arms Export Control Actand the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, according toprosecutors.

The case against Khalili comes after the Mobile-based indictment, arrest and later guilty plea of international arms dealer Jacques Monsieur.

Monsieur pleaded guilty Nov. 23 in Mobile to trying to smuggle engines for fighter jets to Iran, a plot that included extensive contacts with an Alabama-based undercover agent.

Striking a deal with prosecutors, Monsieur admitted that he attempted ship J85-21 engines and other parts to Iran for use in aging F-5 fighter jets that the U.S. sold to Iran before its 1979 revolution.

A 6-count indictment accuses Monsieur and co-defendant Dara Fotouhi -- an Iranian currently living in France -- with conspiracy, money laundering, smuggling and violations of the Arms Export Control Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

According to the indictment, Monsieur was seeking engines for F-5 fighter jets and C-130 military transport planes on behalf of Iran.

The charges stem from an eight-month investigation led by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents based in Mobile and included face-to-face meetings with one undercover agent in London and Paris to hash out the plan to smuggle the banned aircraft parts to Iran through Colombia, according to the indictment.
 
Is anyone else disturbed by the constant drumbeat of war against Iran that we're constantly subjected to in the mainstream media? Over and over again, we're told about the supposed dire threat posed by a small country on the other side of the world, which has not attacked another nation in hundreds of years, which just happens to be sitting on top of a giant pool of oil in one of the most geostrategically important locations in the world. The idea that Iran represents some kind of threat is pounded into our heads on a daily basis, and the ability of corporate interests to manufacture consent from the population for a campaign of demonization against this official enemy would have made Orwell proud. Have we learned nothing from Iraq?

Lost in all this fretting about Iran gaining a nuclear weapon is the fact that the country is encircled by hostile states (that serve U.S. interests). You hear a lot of cynical talk about how a nuclear Iran would pose an "existential threat" to Israel. First, set aside for a second the fact that Israel has a non-declared arsenal of hundreds of nuclear weapons (politicians and the press certainly do. You almost never hear this mentioned in any mainstream media source). If Iran were to use nuclear weapons against Israel, it would be an act of collective suicide on the part of the ruling elite, because it would certainly result in a response that would, in Hillary Clinton's preferred terms, completely obliterate the country. You might not be in favour of Iran's ruling theocracy - I certainly am not - but its leaders are still rational actors. They are not insane enough to invite mass death upon their own nation.

Also, who here is aware of the U.S. history of meddling in Iran to serve its own interests? In 1953, the U.S. - that self-declared beacon of freedom and democracy, the "shining city on a hill" - supported a coup d'etat against the democratically-elected president of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddegh, after he threatened to nationalize the country's oil industry. In his place, the U.S. installed the autocratic Shah, a brutal dictator who ruled the country with an iron fist until the 1979 revolution, keeping the population at bay through the violent repression of his SAVAK secret police. Given that history, you can understand why the people of Iran lashed out at American influence. Also, following that, there is the little matter of the eight-year war Saddam Hussein's Iraq waged against Iran from 1980 to 1988, which killed millions of people. Saddam was at this point supported by the U.S. - remember that infamous footage of him shaking hands with special envoy Donald Rumsfeld?

All this has gone down the memory hole because it doesn't serve the interests of the energy companies, AIPAC, the military-industrial complex, politicians who know where their campaign contributions come from, and media pundits who know that the smart career move is demonizing Iran. Hence we have this bipartisan consensus against Iran, putting every action by the country in the worst popular light. As I said, I'm no fan of the theocratic regime there, but I also recognize a transparent attempt to intimidate a small, weak, yet resource-rich nation when I see it.

Thats the problem, they are no longer small or weak. If Iran remained some backwater Sudan-like nation the US and Europe would have toppled the government already. Iran has its own voice in the region, it is making partnerships with other Persian-speaking nations of Asia (Tajikistan and Afghanistan), and it has our enemies as strong allies, China and Russia; and lastly it is now building a very strong relationship with the Shia government of Iraq.

If America finds a way to fool the world into another pre-emptive campaign against a Middle Eastern country it would be an act of God.

A war now against Iran would (on the negative scale):

1. Turn many Americans against Obama or any future administration
2. Piss off other *****e client/ally nations
3. Cause our relationship with Afghanistan and Iraq to diminish
4. Embolden our enemies who practice terrorism
5. Cause Oil prices to rise
6. May cause our bigger enemies Russia and China to build more inroads in the Middle East.
7. May backfire like it did in Iraq.
8. Would weaken our position globally
9. May trigger Russia to enforce it's military and economic might on ex Soviet republics to keep away the Americans
10. May promote despotism in Iran.

On the positive scale:

1. Strengthen democracy in this region.
2. Empower Israel with a new ally
3. Will weaken Israeli enemies such as Hamas and Hezbollah
4. If it succeeds it would strengthen our hold over Energy
5. Help us maintain our global dominance


IMO, the risks outweigh the benefits.
 
I highly doubt we do anything but have idle threats. We're great at making threats and doing nothing. That's what I think Obama's foreign policy is: making threats and not doing anything.
 
Will this be the final war before the New World Order can establish itself?
 
Doubt it would be war. If anything, he will do what his last democratic predecessor did, just bomb a few sites and wait for the reaction by the world.

Reports even mentioned here state that the US is installing missile defense systems in Arab countries to counter any defensive/reactionary measures by the Iranians to the American's allies.
 
There are American and Israeli forces amassing near Iran!
 
There's no need for war in Iran. All we have to do is wait them out. The younger generations of Iran are very friendly to the West. Khamenei's time in power is slowly ticking away. Just gotta wait it out.
 
No two wars are exactly the same. The war or attack on Iran will be totally different than Iraq. Obama will most likely do what Clinton did to Osama in Afghanistan in 1999, bomb from the country from far away.

The blame will be directed at the US, with Russia and China giving their tacit support, but public condemnation. They need to target the attack with minimal casualties in order to not get the civilian population harmed. If the attack deals a heavy financial blow to Iran, this will put Ahmadinejad's circle to lose out even more in the next elections.
 
There's no need for war in Iran. All we have to do is wait them out. The younger generations of Iran are very friendly to the West. Khamenei's time in power is slowly ticking away. Just gotta wait it out.

LOL! They don't even have a choice anymore. Their last election was fixed and everything is still going "as planned" in terms of nuke building. It will be too late if we wait it out.
 

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,317
Messages
22,084,496
Members
45,883
Latest member
marvel2099fan89
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"