1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Iran - Should We Act Now?

Discussion in 'Politics & The Economy' started by Rasczak, Jan 22, 2011.

  1. dazza74

    dazza74 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    Messages:
    13,189
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,444
    Would you give a student a gun if they professed to be a fan of the columbine massacre. That's the problem with Iran & North Korea, it's the language that comes out of those states that's a cause for concern.

    When push comes to shove, oil will always win and America does what it likes. It's the way of the world whether you like it or not. When push comes to shove Iran would be wiped of the planet if the west thought they'd be an issue with getting oil if it kicked off big time in the middle east.
  2. Pecker

    Pecker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    18,832
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +2,478
    I think you've answered your own question.

    :thumbsup:

    Steve W
  3. Rasczak

    Rasczak Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Messages:
    18,680
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,101
    This is key and an exceptionally good point. Iran would never strike first as the nuclear bombardment that followed would be definitive. But if we were to attempt conventional attack on Iran post their acquisition of a nuclear bomb then we would be in trouble. A small yield nuclear strike on either Camp BASTION, Bahrain or any locally deployed Amphibious Battlegroup - could create tens of thousands of casulaties, detsroy the logistical command/control and abruptly end any Land campaign. Again retaliation would be swift and severe - but Iran would have, at least in some quarters, the moral high ground and we have lost huge numbers of personnel. The political will at home would collapse.
  4. jay mc

    jay mc Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,265
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +181
    So theres deffently a case to get the job done sooner over latter? wikileaks showed many in the region want them delt with and you can bet at some point israel will just go and do it, bad press and repression of others dont seem to phase them one bit..
  5. Rasczak

    Rasczak Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Messages:
    18,680
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,101
    Well I think if we are going to do it, then we should do so sooner rather than later yes. It is a difficult choice - do we rely on bottling them up with snactions and this being successful in the long run - or will we at some stage need to take action. If the latter we may have only a small window to act.
  6. BISHI

    BISHI Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    8,337
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +763
    .............? An impossible option IMO, the country is many times larger with a population over 3X that of Iraq and look at the mess we are in there. Iran is a completely different ball game and I cannot see China sitting idly by and letting the west attempt to control even more oil.
  7. Rasczak

    Rasczak Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Messages:
    18,680
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,101
    I don't dispute it would be difficult - and we could be but a bit player with our current configuration of forces. Would China intervene? Difficult to say...
  8. BISHI

    BISHI Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    8,337
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +763
    China would not intervene directly but I cant see it tolerating a western occupation of another oil rich area when demand for oil is massively increasing. It would intervene economically much the same way the USA did when we occupied Suez. They could destabalize the dollar unless the USA withdrew - which would probably escalate the situation as the USA could not be seen to back down to Chinese pressure. IMO this is the main reason why direct American involvement will never happen, I suspect if anything Israel will be encouraged by the USA to do another Iraqi style air raid which will keep any reprocussions localized.
  9. abraxus

    abraxus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,634
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +222
    Just as there's a case for not getting the job done at all.

    To attack another country without provocation makes us the aggressors and in the wrong. To justify it by saying that we think they might be developing nuclear weapons is hypocritical when we give Israel a pass.

    Iran has never threatened nor is likely to threaten the West without provocation. If others in the region, such as Saudi Arabia or Israel have a problem with it, then let them deal with it. It isn't nor should it be a US problem or one in which we should get dragged into.

    The only threat to the US is if Iran switch all their oil trading to non dollar currencies and other Mid East countries, like Saudi see it as a good idea and follow suit. It's not our job to support US economic wars, nor the US's to fight Israel's battles.
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  10. Rasczak

    Rasczak Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Messages:
    18,680
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,101
    Iran remains keen to influence it's local region and certainly supplies (possibly small, posisbly not) quantities of weapons to Afghanistan. In their current form it will act as a negative (from a Western perspective) influence for years ahead.

    Good points BISHI - but an Israeli led assault could have a destabilising impact across the entire region which wouldn't necessarily happen with a US intervention.
  11. abraxus

    abraxus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,634
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +222
    True but, unless I missed a meeting, a negative influence from our perspective is no longer a justification for attacking someone.
  12. BISHI

    BISHI Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    8,337
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +763
    As i have already said, Israel is already the biggest destabalising influence in the region. Unfortunately it has already demonstrated that it will not tolerate an Islamic nuclear state in the region, and personally i would rather see them sort things out between themselves without dragging western powers into a religious/political squabble in which we have no real strategic interest.
    If Iran aquires a nuclear capability Israel will intervene and the **** will certainly hit the fan. It will be a conflict they will most probably not win without American support. We in the Uk should stay well away.
  13. Rasczak

    Rasczak Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Messages:
    18,680
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,101
    How much of our oil comes from the Middle East? You can draw pretty severe conclusions upon British lifestyle whether you take a regionally focused (Arabian Gulf) or worst case assessment of the conflict (with war extending as far as Egypt).
  14. Rasczak

    Rasczak Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Messages:
    18,680
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,101
    A very good letter in todays The Telegraph:

    He is right - although a little too harsh on the Government who have rated 'strategically mobile forces' very highly albeit excepting they are unaffordable whilst we finish in Afghanistan. Nevertheless he is spot on that the British view on Iran is irrelevant as we are impotent to act across Land, Air and Sea at present. A situation quite ironic when you think we are the fourth biggest spender on Defence in the world.
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2011
  15. BISHI

    BISHI Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    8,337
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +763
    And the last time Israel was at war with its islamic neighbours what happened to the price of oil ? It almost doubled and the whole western hemisphere went into financial panic. Admittedly the fact that Saudi Arabia seem to be encouraging western intervention might play in our favour, but as soon as you involve Israel in the mix that will surely change. It is an incredibly complex situation with enormous variables, it would be impossible to predict what may happen. I think if the USA acts we should stay well clear, if Israel acts we should condemn it, if Israel and Iran go to war we should leave it to the UN. Whatever happens we in the UK are neither equipped, willing or able to afford to play any part in whatever happens.
  16. Rasczak

    Rasczak Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Messages:
    18,680
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,101
    Yes, agreed.

    Again I agree - although I think it is a lammentable state of affairs. A true reflection of the disastrous impact of the Iraq and Afghan wars on this country.
  17. Dextur

    Dextur Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,081
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,318
    Theres no real data showing Iran has weaponry motives, intact even less than the initial WMD data. Great hearing people talking about the deaths of no doubt thousands of innocents.

    If we spent less time invading places , the requirement for these countries to even push for nukes is radically reduced.

    Anybody think for a second we would have been invading Iraq if they had a nuclear arsenal, nope and other countries realise it.

    Getting nukes is a hugely effective measure in retainging your con tries security.

    Will we be invading Israel next, a country we know has an illegal, nmonitored nuclear arsenal.?
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  18. BISHI

    BISHI Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    8,337
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +763
    And this is exactly why Iran wants them, this and the fact that the USA has large army in the countr next door..
  19. Rasczak

    Rasczak Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Messages:
    18,680
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,101
    I'm not sure that is true at all. Iran sees itself as a significant regional player - one that can and does influence affairs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Arabian Gulf and so forth. She aspires to become a nuclear power to retain and enhance that influence. It is in our interests to stop her before a future conflict erupts between her and Israel or Pakistan. There is a ticking time bomb here and we need to determine what our strategy is.

    Israel is, of course a democratic nation with universal suffrage. It can be relied, to an extent, not to initiate a nuclear war except in extreme circumstances. By contrast Iran, whilst admittedly electing it's President via universal suffrage, requires the candidates to be approved first for compliance to 'the ideals of the Islamic revolution'.
  20. tapzilla2k

    tapzilla2k Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    2,972
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Ratings:
    +466
    We've been trying that for the last few years, it's called diplomacy. Iran has not wanted to engage with that, other than to buy themselves time to develop their nuclear programme. The time for diplomacy has probably run out at this stage, the wikileak cables paint a very grim picture indeed. Obama extended the hand of friendship to Iran and they slapped it aside.

    There would not be a ground invasion of Iran, as that would be far worse than Iraq or Afghanistan due to the Iranian Revolutionary guard as they would fight to the death and Iranian backed terror groups would attack Israel and the West. Iran has Russian missle defences, so it would require a very extensive air campaign to get the job done properly. Even then we'd probably only dent Iran's nuclear programme. The cost in human lives would also be quite high as the Iranian Regime has bascially built it's nuclear programme in populated areas (which shows forward planning from Iran).

    While Israel is planning air strikes against Iran (Saudi Arabia and other arab nations will probably give Israel permission to fly through their airspace as the Arabs hatred and fear of Iran is much greater than it's hatred of Israel), i doubt they would have the same sort of success that had against Saddam's nuclear ambitions. The United States is perhaps the only nation with the capability to carry out the necessary airstrikes to cripple the Iranian regime and it's nuclear programme.

    I don't believe any nation should have nuclear weapons, but a nuclear armed Iran would destabalise the middle east further as it would kick off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. That is the biggest danger, forget a nuclear armed Israel. A Nuclear armed Middle East is a much more frightening prospect.
  21. majnu

    majnu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,409
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +3,212
    If Iran is invaded and they (Iran) retaliate by launching a nuclear arsenal at the attacking country, I for one will not show sympathy towards the attackers.
  22. Rasczak

    Rasczak Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Messages:
    18,680
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,101
    Does that apply whatever the circumstances?
  23. majnu

    majnu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,409
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +3,212
    Obviously not, but then whos version of the truth are we going to believe?
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  24. abraxus

    abraxus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,634
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +222
    But isn't that same reason that Iran wants to arm itself as it sees the US as a significant regional player and therefore a threat, precisely the reason why groups such as Al Quaeda attack the West. They see the West as significant players which influence affairs in their region and need to be opposed.

    Us attacking Iran would morally be like Russia attacking the US because it influenced affairs and dominated politics in latin America.

    Of course I can see why we'd like to, but apart from selfish concerns we have no moral imperative to do so and to a degree would be acting hypocritically

    It has universal suffrage for Jews. Palestinians are also subject to approved options as the last I heard Israel were deciding if they would b allowed to vote in Palestinian election in Jerusalem, depending on whether Hamas were on the ballot, and the US threatened to withdraw aid and funding if the Palestinian leadership changes.

    Of course Israel may well be relied upon not to initiate a nuclear war except in extreme circumstances, but extreme circumstances by Israel's standards are somewhat less than anyone else's. Israel will act as Israel sees fit according to its own agenda, and if neccesary will act against allies to achieve its ends as with both the Lavon affair and the attacking of the Liberty. It's democratic status or otherwise is unlikely to effect that.
  25. dBrowne

    dBrowne Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,288
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +164
    I admit I'm struggling a bit with that analogy. What strategic interests does Russia have nowadays in Latin America? Back in the cold war when it did, Latin America was very much fertile ground for proxy wars between the US and the Soviet Union, as well as the flash point where the two powers came closest to throwing nukes at each other.

    The morality of intervention comes down to a judgment call on the nature of the Iranian regime, its intentions and of the likely regional response. If her neighbours consequently felt threatened, would they too not be justified in acquiring nuclear weapons to ward off a perceived Iranian threat? They would probably feel (quite reasonably) that the Yanks would be less keen to risk troops on the ground for their sake, so who could then blame them? Would we in Europe feel safer in a future where the Middle East was brimming with nukes held by authoritarian, often paranoid, sometimes messianic, regimes with hair-trigger launch buttons? When it was just the two nuclear superpowers facing each other, they at least had the luxury of being continents apart to provide a few minutes of deliberation to determine the real nature of a potential launch threat from the other side. Even then, there were a few close calls. Imagine how much worse it could be in a less restrained Middle East.

    The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (of which Iran is a signatory) was born to avoid just such eventualities. Should the unthinkable ever come to pass in that region and it all goes tits up, I'm certain the weather in Europe will be delightful; let's hope the trade winds blow from west to east. So sure, call me selfish, but I'd rather there were as few nukes floating about in one of the tensest and most militarised places on Earth that also happens to be next door to the Europe I live in. The fact that many in that region hate everything the civilisation that I enjoy represents, and might then think that they have the means to do something about it, is of secondary concern.

    In short, I don't see the moral hypocrisy in actively opposing Iran's attempts to acquire the bomb.

    As an aside, whilst I agree that it would be preferable that Israel did not have the bomb, I am not convinced that the standards that would induce her to use it are less than Iran's would be. Nobody is ever likely to, or has threatened to, wipe Iran from the map.
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2011
  26. Sonic67

    Sonic67 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    21,966
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +3,192
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  27. Sonic67

    Sonic67 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    21,966
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +3,192
    Who exactly do you think the UN are? They aren’t some kind of separate armed forces on this planet. We along with four other nations are permanent members of the UN. It was the UN behind the UK being in Afghanistan now. Also the UN and hence also us behind our involvement in Korea and the Balkans in the past. Are you saying the rest of the UN should be involved but not us though we are one of the few permanent members of it? By UN do you mean America? What?
  28. dBrowne

    dBrowne Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,288
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +164
    Right you are. Thanks for that. I still think that Israel wouldn't dare use it short of an existential threat to the country (and not merely that of its regime). That really would be the nail in the coffin for any continued US support.
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2011
  29. BISHI

    BISHI Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    8,337
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +763
    You're quite right, infact the UN is the last organization that should get involved - the fact that Israel has ignored every UN criticism levelled against it for years shows it is a pointless entity in the middle east.
    I also think that now China is a permanent member of the security council it will veto any intervention on the side of Israel. Also I think the fake intelligence about WMD had much more to do with us being in Iraq than the UN mandate.
  30. abraxus

    abraxus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,634
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +222
    The analogy was purely aimed at a third parties actions and not its motivations. In other words the middle east is as much of our business as latin america is the Russians. Sorry, it wasn't the best, I know.

    True but that is a strategic imperative rather than a moral one. Iran and other countries no doubt feel insecure that the West is brimming with nukes and because of its greater strength is able to exert tremendous power and influence in its region.

    Of course, seeing it from our side alone I can see why some may wish to act, but from an outside perspective it's easy to see why Iran would want to arm itself.

    And to date Iran have only insisted on nuclear power, the rest is speculation. I would also prefer fewer nukes but can understand why others might want them, especially when continually threatened with invasion or attack.

    I don't know if you've met many Iranians, or Arabs in general for that matter. None that I've met hate our way of life, some envy it and others aspire to it. What they hate the most is other countries manipulating and influencing their politics and occupying their countries.

    Fair enough, we differ. I don't like them having nukes any more than they don't like us having them. I don't want them to have them but feel that attacking them because they might is no better than people attacking us because of what we do. It would be as justified as an Iranian strike on Israeli nuclear installations.

    I think the Palestinians will tell you that it's a lot better that someone "threatens" to wipe your country off the map than someone who actually does wipe your country off the map.

Share This Page