Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[SoyElTurco]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

they're shˇtting in their pants.

the iranian oil bourse is a threat to status of the dollar - it means its collapse. saddam was attacked because he switched to selling oil in euros. they sent a message to the world by attacking saddam that nobody is going to challenge the dollar. after the invasion turned into a disaster, iran was emboldened and went ahead with the bourse. the situation the US is faced with is really unpleasant: attack now and face an immediate worldwide depression with the closing of the hormuz, or dont attack and the dollar eventually collapses when customers begin to buy oil in euros yen or rubles.

the u.s. is trying to buy time to figure out what it can do without destroying itself impulsively. they're upping the troop presence in afghanistan maybe to force iran to redirect some of its missile defenses in that direction to lessen the blow for the hormuz straits.

they'll probably try to push for the balochis (mostly sunni) in the east of iran to start their own independence movement and begin to supply some balochi independence groups to create a disintegration nightmare for iran. balochis are on the border with pakistan and iran - all the more reason to dinsintegrate pakistan as well.

internal overthrow of the iranian regime is close to impossible; the iranian government is entrenched in the military and security agencies, a regime change wont happen without direct military confrontation. internal threats such as secularists dont have any realistic way of overthrowing the iranian regime.

to them, the iranians must be dealt with. to let iran continue is not an option but doing something is a graver option.

time is running out. a candle flame rages when it is being blown out. the US isnt at the peak of its rage. it will rage only more

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

...the iranian oil bourse is a threat to status of the dollar - it means its collapse. saddam was attacked because he switched to selling oil in euros. they sent a message to the world by attacking saddam that nobody is going to challenge the dollar. after the invasion turned into a disaster, iran was emboldened and went ahead with the bourse. the situation the US is faced with is really unpleasant: attack now and face an immediate worldwide depression with the closing of the hormuz, or dont attack and the dollar eventually collapses when customers begin to buy oil in euros yen or rubles...

A very accurate description of what is taking place, Turco. It seems to me that you an intelligent Turk. Since "intelligent" and "Turk" don't go together, I must surmise that you have some Armenian blood in you...

[SoyElTurco]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

I must surmise that you have some Armenian blood in you...

turks are a product of the armenians, byzantines (greeks) assyrians and other mostly christian original inhabitants of the anatolian peninsula. no guess as to why we look more european than we do to our altaic ancestors of central asia, who look more mongolian than us.

we're kind of your children, sort to say. your muslim, turkish speaking successors.

[Azad]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

we're kind of your children, sort to say.

You are smart to acknowledge it. Armenians are the ones that did not get diluted.

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

we're kind of your children, sort to say. your muslim, turkish speaking successors.

Interesting choice of words... The way you phrased it is powerful and profoundly sad at the same time. Many emotions/conclusions can be derived from it. Difficult to put it in words.

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Gazprom eyes Iran's oil, gas fields

Gazprom is interested in developing Iran's oil and gas deposits, the Russian energy giant said on Wednesday. Earlier in the day, Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller had a meeting with Iran's Petroleum Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari, to discuss in particular cooperation between Gazprom and Iranian oil and gas companies. "Prospecting, development and operation of Iranian oil and gas deposits was cited among the main lines of cooperation. The parties reiterated their interest in strengthening mutually beneficial long-term partnerships in the energy sphere," the Russian company said in a statement. Gazprom has been involved in a project to develop and operate South Pars (reportedly the world's largest gas field with reserves of 14 trillion cubic meters) since 1997. On July 13, 2008, Gazprom and the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) signed a memorandum of mutual understanding.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/business/20081224/119159376.html

[ZORAVAR]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

I would like to hear Zoravar's take on this matter as well.

Sorry for showing up late. Last couple of days I was in 3 continents (Asia, Europe and N. America) and travelled about 12,000 kms. Needless to say that I am writing these lines while tired, jetlagged etc.

As far as an attack on Iran would concern:

Someone has said that "starting a war is easy, ending it or controlling its outcome is difficult".

No country in the world would engage its army into a long, protracted ground war against the 80 million strong Persian nation. The results will be extremely costly and unpredictable. Only a madman like Saddam would do it...and we all know how it all ended up for him...

Having said that, the USA and/or Israel could launch a limited short term air assault on Iran to destroy nuclear (or other) installations.
A possible air strike will not take the Iranians by surprise as the threats and sabre-ratlling have been going on for a long time. However, the attackers can still make an air offensive successfull by choosing correctly the "where", "when" and "how". Current Iranian air defenses are limited in capability and can be beaten by the most modern airborne assets of the US and/or Israel. Even if the Iranians get their hands on the very capable S-300 anti air missiles from Russia, a few such batteries can be overwhelmed and saturated by hundreds of cruise missiles arriving at around the same time. By the way, the S-300s are not yet in Iran, and even if they get them today, it will take a year or two until the Iranian crews become proficient with these complicated systems.

Yes, the Americans can successfully wholy (or partially) destroy the Iranian nuclear installations with a well planned air strike. The Israelis can succeed too but, because of their smaller forces and the greater distances, they will be able to strike at only one or two targets only. The fact that their warplanes will have to cross third countries (to reach Iran) will complicate matters further both politically and militarily.

If an American/Israeli air strike happens:

- If the attack fails and the Iranian targets are not destroyed: Iran willl claim military victory. It will also gain politically.

- If the attack succeeds and the targets are fully (or partially) destroyed: The Iranian nuclear program will receive a temporary setback (it will take -at most- a few years to recover). However, as Armenian pointed out, Iran can retaliate in different ways.

Here are a few of the options open to the Iranian leadership:

Hard options: They will opt for these if they want to escalate the situation and cause a longer conflict in which they will suffer immensely, but the US, the West and Israel will pay a very heavy price too.
- Launching a retaliatory counter stike on Israel with their long-range surface to surface missiles: this will force the Israelis and/or the US into launching further raids into Iran. The conflict will eventually escalate into a full-scale war that the West can not afford.
- Launching retaliatory strikes against the US forces in Iraq (and/or Afghanistan): That too will mean full scale war that the West does not want.
-Mining the straights of Hormuz, attacking shipping in the Persian Gulf, stopping their own oil exports, etc.: The Iranians can easily do all that and force a shortage of Oil, dangerous price hikes, economical crisis etc.etc. The West can not afford all that.

Soft options: Because of the limited nature of a US/Israeli air strike, I believe that the Iranians will opt to these more limited options which are meant to make things more difficult in the long run for the USA and Israel. They will take a longer time but will be very effective.
- Proxy wars: A good example will be Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Iranians can simply double their financial and military support for that organization. They can also increase aid to Syria and invite them to take an even harder stand in politics. Another candidate could be Hamas. In short, anyone or anything that is blacklisted or labeled "terrorist" will receive additional financial/military/political assistance.
- Closer political and military cooperation with Russia: No doubt Russia will condems any military attack on Iran. As a result there will be a multi-billion $$$ deal of supplying Russian weapons to Iran. The Russians will benefit financially while the Iranians will become even stronger. The air strike will not be such a bad thing after all!!!
- Arming the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan: despite all claims and rhetoric by the USA, the Iranians have been very restrained in helping the anti-US/NATO forces in those 2 countries. In case of a strike against Iran, all the cards will come down. We will see sophisticated and capable weapons being used against the Americans. I am talking about MANPADS (man portable air defense systems) that will make life very difficult to US helicopters and aircraft. ATGWs (antitank guided missiles) being fired at them from long ranges (instead of the rudimentary RPGs). Sophisticated mines instead of home-made IEDs etc.etc. All of these weapons and financial backing will hurt the US so much that a humiliating pullout from Iraq and Afghanistan will be on the table...

No wonder no attack has occurred thus far. Iran has just too many options, too many cards, too many aces...and both sides know it.

[robertik1]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Thanks for your take also, Zoravar.

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Iran's Ahmadinejad: Merry Xmas, bullying powers

Merry Christmas, "bullying, ill-tempered and expansionist powers."

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will deliver a Christmas Day broadcast on Britain's Channel 4 television, occupying a slot used to provide an often controversial counterpoint to Queen Elizabeth II's traditional annual message, the station said Wednesday. In his recorded message, Ahmadinejad offers seasonal greetings to Christians and says he believes that if Jesus were alive, he would "stand with the people in opposition to bullying, ill-tempered and expansionist powers," an apparent reference to the United States and its allies. According to a transcript of the broadcast released in advance, Ahmadinejad says most of the world's problems stem from leaders who have turned against religion. He doesn't refer to rival nations or leaders by name or raise the issue of Israel, despite his previous calls for the removal of the xxxish state. "If Christ were on earth today, undoubtedly He would hoist the banner of justice and love for humanity to oppose warmongers, occupiers, terrorists and bullies the world over," Ahmadinejad said, according to the text. The U.S., Britain and others suspect Iran of secretly developing nuclear weapons, while Tehran insists its uranium enrichment program is intended solely for a civilian energy program. Ties with the U.K. were further strained in 2007 over the detention by Iran of 15 British sailors and marines, who were held for 13 days. The Israeli ambassador to London condemned Ahmadinejad's speech as a "bogus message of good will" and said the broadcast was a disgrace. "That (Channel 4) should give an unchallenged platform to the president of a regime which denies the Holocaust, advocates the destruction of the sovereign state of Israel, funds and encourages terrorism, executes children and hangs gay people is a disgrace," Ron Prosor said. "Outrage doesn't begin to explain it." Ahmadinejad's message follows similar Christmas broadcasts on Channel 4 by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sharon Osborne and the animated TV character Marge Simpson of "The Simpsons." Last year's message was delivered by Sgt. Maj. Andrew Stockton, a British soldier badly wounded in Afghanistan. Ahmadinejad spoke in Persian, with subtitles in English, the channel said. Dorothy Byrne, head of news and current affairs at Channel 4, said Ahmadinejad had been selected because relations between Iran and the West are likely to be a key global issue in 2009. "As the leader of one of the most powerful states in the Middle East, President Ahmadinejad's views are enormously influential. As we approach a critical time in international relations, we are offering our viewers an insight into an alternative world view," Byrne said. The channel's news program broadcast an interview with Ahmadinejad in September 2007, when the Iranian leader insisted his nation wasn't seeking to develop a nuclear weapon.

Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...sF8LgD95979J04

[Armanen]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

And what do you all make of the claims that if an attack took place against Iran, Armenia would see a large influx of Iranian refugees?