• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

🗣️ | Middle East War | Full Scale War Still Seems Imminent as Deterrence Erodes & Brinkmanship Intensifies | ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION

Status
Not open for further replies.
Loadstain said:
No matter which side wins the midterms, President Trump may decide he has nothing to lose by going all in on destroying Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Click to expand...
No doubt. I just wish this was a decision he arrived at back in February after the regime's leadership was decapitated and confusion/uncertainty reigned inside the IRGC military hierarchy.

At this point, their military has organizationally recovered to some degree, and they likely have a defense plan to execute with a redefined chain of command. I'm not saying it will be successfully executed. But it will certainly make US-led invasions or ground operations more difficult then one night have been long ago.
 
Last edited:
teekay99 said:
North Korea has shown us that containment of rogue regimes actively seeking nuclear weapons doesn't work.
Click to expand...
On the flip side of that, Ukraine and Libya have shown the rest of the world that halting their pursuit or possession of nuclear weapons through negotiation with the US will always come back to bite them in the ass.

teekay99 said:
If our goal is to prevent the Iranian regime from getting nuclear weapons (something President Trump has clearly stated more than once), then IMO, regime change of some kind must occur.
Click to expand...
Because that worked so well for the US in Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, just to name a few. We can't even get Democracy to function properly in our own country. Why do we think trying to export it to other countries will function there?

teekay99 said:
Up to this point in the conflict, the American political leadership has not demonstrated a clear will to commit the necessary mix of forces to the theatre to bring about regime change. And with a looming change in the majority party in Congress, this is not likely to change anytime soon in the absence of a substantial escalatory act from Iran. So it looks like it's going to be containment by default coupled with an Iranian regime highly motivated to get the bomb... A clear recipe for American success (/sarcasm)
Click to expand...
Lather, rinse, repeat.
 
RiffRaff said:
On the flip side of that, Ukraine and Libya have shown the rest of the world that halting their pursuit or possession of nuclear weapons through negotiation with the US will always come back to bite them in the ass.
Click to expand...
True. No argument

RiffRaff said:
Because that worked so well for the US in Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, just to name a few. We can't even get Democracy to function properly in our own country. Why do we think trying to export it to other countries will function there?
Click to expand...
I argue for regime change. Not nation building.
The foundations of democracy exist within Iran - there is voting even though candidate choice is constrained by the Ayatollah. So, I would like to present the following hypothetical, likely unrealistic argument. Suppose the US launches an effective military operation with the correct mix of forces required to eliminate the rest of the regime, subduing the remaining elements of the IGRC, and destroying remaining military capability. Suppose this swift action brings the Iranian civilian government to the negotiation table sans Supreme Leader. What if a peace treaty between the United States and Iran had two main components?
  1. Iran agrees to never pursue nuclear weapons
  2. Iran agrees to drop the Supreme Leader and IRGC. The existing civilian government remains in charge at the top of the leadership structure. The Supreme Leader, the IRGC, and related government entities are deleted from the government hierarchy and its legal framework.
Does this provide an opportunity for Iran to govern itself without rebuilding the nation's government?

RiffRaff said:
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Stupid is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. American administrations frequently excel at being stupid.

What would be your approach to addressing/resoloving the Iranian conflict?
 
Question, because various countries are telling their citizens to prepare is it possible iran has crossed the threshold to nuclear WMD and they know it? What should the US do if iran does a nuclear test? Total war or you win, you are now a nuclear armed state?

Is it possible that that clip I posted about "duck and cover" iranian media supposedly put out at pickaxe is not about the US bombing it but that they are planning a test there. Satellites have picked up allot of activity there.

Is it possible putin, kim and xi either gave them a warhead or helped them build one, for testing only? They might assume that because the west did nothing when NK went nuclear, they wouldn't do anything if iran does?

This is a great power struggle between east and west and the people are caught in the middle. Welcome to "cold war 2.0!"

Buy some more beans!
 
william said:
Is it possible putin, kim and xi either gave them a warhead or helped them build one, for testing only? They might assume that because the west did nothing when NK went nuclear, they wouldn't do anything if iran does?
Click to expand...
There was an established link between Iran and DPRK even before DPRK conducted their first test. Iranian nuclear scientists were present in North Korea working with North Korean nuclear scientists. If a warhead was sold or given to Iran, it most likely came from North Korea. Putin and Xi might provide assistance, but I can't see them actually providing a live warhead.
 
RiffRaff said:
True. But do you think Iran is any different?
Click to expand...
The main difference is it would be a tactical nightmare to invade Iran compared to any of those other conflicts. Statistics do not support a successful protracted military conflict with Iran. So we not only would be politically screwed into a loss like our past experiences, but we would be facing a vastly different enemy that has had decades to prepare for layered asymmetrical defense and a much larger standing army, along with covert networks abroad. The room for escalation has grown as well comparative to those conflicts, we don't necessarily face the same China or Russia that we faced in Korea/Vietnam. We are dealing with powerbrokers that are largely willing to provide advanced systems and targeting information that can be laterally dispersed without giving a clear picture of the level of support we are facing. We aren't dealing with the massive shipments of arms and soldiers heading over the Yalu River that can be sourced clearly for newspapers, as casus belli to enter the war. The United States has not responded with a measured response to the Iranian issue of enrichment for decades, while ignoring it's own responsibilities/blame for that situation existing in the first place. I should mention that I do agree with you, I just think Iran is a bit more of a unique circumstance given their capabilities. I think a good summation of what both sides use as their go to approach to each other is called DARVO in domestic relationships.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
Wonder why the US is waiting until after the election. Would it really make a difference in the expected outcome?
Click to expand...
Maybe the announcement is designed to provoke activity in Iran. If Iran thinks an attack is imminent, they might make defensive preparations that US and defence intelligence agencies can track/monitor. Such preparation /movement might give up the location of a high value target.

Then again, the US administration has previously stated a big attack is imminent only to reverse course. So Iran might be numb to this game...
 
Peter Griffin said:
Click to expand...
That was an interesting podcast, and I agree with most of it. What I don't agree with is the so called "Rules of War or the Morel Highground" he talked about. That is a good way to get troops killed especially when you have an enemy dressed as civilians or using civilians as human shields. Just look at the history of warfare through the ages. If you're going to send troops into combat worried about the "Rules of War or Morel Highground" don't send them at all. This idea of sending American men and women into combat with one hand tied behind their back has got to stop. War is a dirty messy business! IMO
 
Is the iran war a just war? Will the democrats force a withdrawal when they gain power and allow iran to get the bomb? You know they are going to go for it after being bombed. Does it even matter?

I find it ironic that the dems seem to want to continue spending blood and treasure on the Ukraine, russia war but not on the iran war.
Why is that?
 
RiffRaff said:
On the flip side of that, Ukraine and Libya have shown the rest of the world that halting their pursuit or possession of nuclear weapons through negotiation with the US will always come back to bite them in the ass.


Because that worked so well for the US in Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, just to name a few. We can't even get Democracy to function properly in our own country. Why do we think trying to export it to other countries will function there?


Lather, rinse, repeat.
Click to expand...
Too true, and in the context of human history this is the result that should have been expected.
 
william said:
Is the iran war a just war? Will the democrats force a withdrawal when they gain power and allow iran to get the bomb? You know they are going to go for it after being bombed. Does it even matter?

I find it ironic that the dems seem to want to continue spending blood and treasure on the Ukraine, russia war but not on the iran war.
Why is that?
Click to expand...
Because Ukraine was invaded and the destruction of Iran is Netanyahu's pet project.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom