Iran Crisis

Atkingani wrote: Well, the task with Iran must be great... Iran is 4 times bigger than Iraq and has a huge population also 4 times that of Iraq. Iranian people is more educated and concerned and they are basically of the shi'a sect - no religious divisions like in Iraq.  As long as I know, except for minorities, well integrated, of azeris and turcomens the population is homogeneous with the same persian background - no great ethnic divisions like in Iraq.  Iran has also very good Armed Forces and the ayatollahs are not silly guys like Saddam; they have a good industrial park capable of manufacturing light-to-medium weapons and other important items - Iraq had a tiny industrial park (except for the oil sector).  The resistance, in case of an invasion (which I still doubt) will be tremendous! They have certainly the atomic bomb but presently no means (a missile) to pour Israel for instance but they can let several artifacts in the eventual route of American & Allied forces - not counting the philosophy of flattened land, meaning the destruction of refineries, pipeways and oil pits. Honestly, I believe that only a mad, mad, mad man is able to take this enterprise... but since the name Bush is cited I fear he'll take it.

With regard to Irans military capability, it is far greater than Iraqs, but there is no evidence that they have an A bomb at present. They have been customers of the Russians for some time, and the Russians may have sold them 'Sunburn' missiles which are like highly advanced Cruise missiles that fly at just 60 feet, at MK2. They would be armed with conventional warheads, though. In any case they have other conventionally armed missiles capable of striking Israel, and if they are attacked they will not think twice about using them. The only way they could have acquired a nuclear weapon is through the 'black market' perhaps laying their hands on one of the many 'suitcase nukes' that (allegedly) went 'missing' after the USSR collapsed. The Russians would be violation of the NPT if they had openly sold nuclear weapons to Iran. America would not have let that pass un-noticed.

There was a rumour circulating on the web - although mainly on websites that were blatantly anti Semitic - that the Russians had already positioned Sunburn missiles with 200KT nuclear payloads near to Damascus in case of an Israeli assault on either Iran or Syria. But the language on some of those sites is so rabid and terrifying, it's hard to take them seriously.

This is a good example..

http://www.vialls.com/myahudi/sunburn.html

Blacksword wrote: Atkingani wrote: Well, the task with Iran must be great... Iran is 4 times bigger than Iraq and has a huge population also 4 times that of Iraq. Iranian people is more educated and concerned and they are basically of the shi'a sect - no religious divisions like in Iraq.  As long as I know, except for minorities, well integrated, of azeris and turcomens the population is homogeneous with the same persian background - no great ethnic divisions like in Iraq.  Iran has also very good Armed Forces and the ayatollahs are not silly guys like Saddam; they have a good industrial park capable of manufacturing light-to-medium weapons and other important items - Iraq had a tiny industrial park (except for the oil sector).  The resistance, in case of an invasion (which I still doubt) will be tremendous! They have certainly the atomic bomb but presently no means (a missile) to pour Israel for instance but they can let several artifacts in the eventual route of American & Allied forces - not counting the philosophy of flattened land, meaning the destruction of refineries, pipeways and oil pits. Honestly, I believe that only a mad, mad, mad man is able to take this enterprise... but since the name Bush is cited I fear he'll take it.   With regard to Irans military capability, it is far greater than Iraqs, but there is no evidence that they have an A bomb at present. They have been customers of the Russians for some time, and the Russians may have sold them 'Sunburn' missiles which are like highly advanced Cruise missiles that fly at just 60 feet, at MK2. They would be armed with conventional warheads, though. In any case they have other conventionally armed missiles capable of striking Israel, and if they are attacked they will not think twice about using them. The only way they could have acquired a nuclear weapon is through the 'black market' perhaps laying their hands on one of the many 'suitcase nukes' that (allegedly) went 'missing' after the USSR collapsed. The Russians would be violation of the NPT if they had openly sold nuclear weapons to Iran. America would not have let that pass un-noticed. There was a rumour circulating on the web - although mainly on websites that were blatantly anti Semitic - that the Russians had already positioned Sunburn missiles with 200KT nuclear payloads near to Damascus in case of an Israeli assault on either Iran or Syria. But the language on some of those sites is so rabid and terrifying, it's hard to take them seriously. This is a good example.. http://www.vialls.com/myahudi/sunburn.html

I also thought of Pakistan... and their atomic capability.

Update..

The US will 'insist' that Iran is brought before the UN. Condoleeza Rice believes that the Russian compromise plan is just a delaying tactic...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4652948.stm

This is not headline news here in the UK anymore. By my twisted paranoid reckoning, that means it's more serious than they're letting on.

Sean Trane wrote: Blacksword wrote: Update.. The US will 'insist' that Iran is brought before the UN. Condoleeza Rice believes that the Russian compromise plan is just a delaying tactic... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4652948.stm This is not headline news here in the UK anymore. By my twisted paranoid reckoning, that means it's more serious than they're letting on. I think Iran can count on permanent security member China to back them up on this one.

I'm sure China will veto any resolution, that will mean no sanctions for Iran.

However, as has been proved with Iraq. We dont need the UN's blessing to start bombing people (apparently) The US, Israel and whoever else is part of this 'coalition of the willing' will get to where they need to be no matter what. 

Blacksword wrote: However, as has been proved with Iraq. We dont need the UN's blessing to start bombing people (apparently) The US, Israel and whoever else is part of this 'coalition of the willing' will get to where they need to be no matter what.

The sad fact is that recently the 'coalition of the willing' have had a war every few years (Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq again). I was hoping that the last Iraqi mess would have been the last one. Dream on.

krusty wrote: It appears the USA are now "bullying" other countries again to side with them as well. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4647956.stm "Lines will be drawn, are you with us or against us, etc ,etc"

Things are working out great for Bush this time round. A conservative has just been voted into power in Canada, pledging to 'mend' Canada's relationship with the US. France is on board this time, as is Germany with their new conservative chancellor.

I dont think they'll have to bully to many people for support. What makes me laugh - not that it's funny - is that sanctions are imposed on India for nuclear testing, the US get them lifted promising to flog them even more nuclear technology, while India borders another nuclear power who happens to be an ideological enemy. Surely no one has forgotten just how close India and Pakistan came to full blown nuclear war about three years ago?! It's a very dangerous region of the world, and no one has ever taken issue with either. Then there's Iran who want to develop nuclear power, and have the right to do so, and we're gearing up for war, just in case they make a bomb one day

Not even the British media are as hysterical and intent on whipping up hatred and mistrust as this..

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060126-083812-6937r. htm

I love the phrase 'Emerging regional stability'  In the week that Hamas was democratically elected to power, and the week that Britain announced it was sending another 3000 troops to Afghanistan. Iran is apparently responsible for destroying this stability.

Syzygy wrote: Blacksword wrote: Not even the British media are as hysterical and intent on whipping up hatred and mistrust as this.. http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060126-083812-6937r. htm I love the phrase 'Emerging regional stability'  In the week that Hamas was democratically elected to power, and the week that Britain announced it was sending another 3000 troops to Afghanistan. Iran is apparently responsible for destroying this stability. The Palestinian election was clearly undemocratic, as it failed to return a conservative government committed to reducing the tax burden on the already wealthy, allowing corporations to write their own legislation and scrapping any form of social welfare. If we start accepting election results based on the wishes of the electorate we'll be in all kinds of trouble! As for Iran - it's just the thing to take people's minds off the problems being experienced in Afghanistan and Iraq. Expect to read some alarming but rather vague 'intelligence reports' from Tehran over the next few months.

Well, was it not Winston Churchill who claimed that the best argument AGAINST democracy was a 'five minute conversation with the average voter'

Afghanistan is rarely in the news these days. It's not a good story. It supposed to be a peaceful democratic country now, since the Taliban were overthrown. Ok, women dont have to wear Bhurkas anymore, people can go to the cinema now and then and listen to music, but all this wonderful freedom remains set against a backdrop of bloodshed, and an ongoing mistrust of the US and UK among many Afghan people.

I expect Iran will be referred to the UNSC. Any resolution will be vetoed, and in the months that follow Israel will act unilaterally with 'surgical' air strikes on Irans suspected nuclear facilities. Whether or not the conflict escalates depends on how Iran reacts, and how in turn America responds to that reaction.