The U.S. Stands to Lose Much More Than a War With Iran

[SalarHaqq]

As I said time and time again The way the killing of Suleimani was a blatant provocation but Iran didn't take the bait. Your leaders are smarter than the forum users here.

Not really, if Washington decides to launch military aggression on a nation, it won't let it hinge upon the targeted government taking a bait but will simply go ahead.

The USA regime has shown it will not even shy away from fabricating a bogus casus belli as with Iraq in 2003.

After Quwait fiasco, Saddam was thinking that "wow they didn't march to Baghdad an kill me it means they can't or they don't want to" but they were just biding their time, waiting for a good crisis. Just because they haven't attacked you yet to deduce from that that Iran is so STRONK that they can't. Is one of the most foolish fallacies that I see you guys engage with.

Again, they "can" start a war and achieve their goals but not at a price deemed affordable. Your notions of war are essentially Jominian (based on raw on-paper comparison of technology) and thus fail to take into account acually decisive political stakes evidenced by von Clausewitz.

Indeed, the fact that Washington hasn't proceeded with such in 44 long years despite comparatively conducive conditions over much of that period means the cost/benefit calculus is not in their favor. For that to evolve, drastic change in fundamental criteria of relevance on either or both sides would have to occur. In such a case we will adjust our conclusion accordingly, but for the time being nothing warrants it.

As for Iran's "transformation" not in the air force, not in the navy, not even much in the Army. It's just Missile forces so far. You have the same rifles, same tanks, first plane you received in DECADES is the 2 Yak-130ies that arrived last week.

And this is exactly what has held the USA regime at bay.

 

[ReasonableStar75]

That, and because pride stands in the way of acknowledging that an alternate path is possible for nations of the global south, a path independent of the zio-American empire and in spite of the latter's wrath.

I don t have hopes in global south, but i know Iran can.

Iran missiles were the most intelligent bet by Iranians, and they work, in spite of ignorant comments.

"just missiles" LMAO.

 

[retaxis]

US can't defeat Iran in ground war within suffering unacceptable losses and Iran has been preparing for war of survival for decades

 

[LegionnairE]

Not really, if Washington decides to launch military aggression on a nation, it won't make itself dependent on the targeted government taking a bait but will simply go ahead.

That's why they waited for 9/11 to invade Iraq? Bogus or not they frame all their wars as defensive.

Again, they "can" start a war and achieve their goals but not at a price deemed affordable.

You don't know what price they deem as affordable. All of their major cities are half a planet away. Iranian navy is stuck in Persian gulf and Iranian Air Force is as we know. How are you even going to find a firing solution against their carrier groups?

And I would argue that, at least in part, they are getting what they want without war. They've been squeezing Iran really hard with economic sanctions and internal turmoil.

And this is exactly what has held the USA regime at bay.

The what now?

 

[SalarHaqq]

I don t have hopes in global south, but i know Iran can.

Iran missiles were the most intelligent bet by Iranians, and they work, in spite of ignorant comments.

"just missiles" LMAO.

Patience, brother, patience. Today serious cracks are visible in the empire's system of domination, from an expanding BRICS to Saudi attempts to adopt a more balanced foreign policy, we are living in a period of transition. This is not the sort of process to reach completion in a matter of mere years. But already, Iran's principled stance has had an impact on emerging powers and rivals of the USA such as Russia and China in encouraging them not to give in easily to pressure from Washington.

 

[SalarHaqq]

That's why they waited for 9/11 to invade Iraq?

They didn't wait too long. "Rebuilding America's Defences", a paper by the neoconservative "think tank" Project for a New American Century outlining the exact sort of policy that was implemented as a result of 9/11, was published in September 2000, a mere year prior to the attacks they used as a justification. Draw your own conclusions. Fact remains however that they will invoke any possible justification for war if that is what they intend to embark on. And when it comes to Iran, they are certainly not short of such pretexts.

Bogus or not they frame all their wars as defensive.

The USA regime doesn't make itself dependent on a targeted nation to take or leave baits. If they decide on launching a war, they will. They always have.

You don't know what price they deem as affordable.

What I definitely do know though, is that the price of all out war with Iran is above the threshold they set themselves.

All of their major cities are half a planet away. Iranian navy is stuck in Persian gulf and Iranian Air Force is as we know. How are you even going to find a firing solution against their carrier groups?

As highlighted by the former USA Marine intelligence officer quoted in the opening post as well as other knowledgeable sources, a typical NATO-style air campaign against a large and fairly developed country like Iran from over 1000 kilometers afar will be considerably hampered by distance. Furthermore the list of targets within Iran's reach goes way beyond the carrier groups involved in such a hypothetical aggression: it covers USA interests all over West Asia, including the safety of the zionist entity which to the USA establishment is totally paramount.

And I would argue that, at least in part, they are getting what they want without war. They've been squeezing Iran really hard with economic sanctions and internal turmoil.

None of which stood in the way of Iran continuously expanding her military power, regional influence and economic output.

Also this is a meager excuse for lack of decisive action against a government which challenged and damaged their interests to a far greater extent than others they effectively assaulted and toppled through military means.

The what now?

The Iranian strategy of arms development and procurement, as well as the employment doctrine of said weaponry.

 

[TriptiD]

This paper is from May 2019 but of course every bit as valid as it was then.

Sorry, I don't agree with this at all. Circumstances are completely different today. Trump had pulled out of the nuclear deal that Obama and Biden had painstakingly crafted and was being egged on to carry out airstrikes against Iran. Biden has been trying his best to find a modus vivendi and has no interest in attacking Iran unless Iran itself stages a grave provocation. In fact, it is likely pressure from him that has prevented Israel from bombing Iranian nuclear installations.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Sorry, I don't agree with this at all. Circumstances are completely different today. Trump had pulled out of the nuclear deal that Obama and Biden had painstakingly crafted and was being egged on to carry out airstrikes against Iran. Biden has been trying his best to find a modus vivendi and has no interest in attacking Iran unless Iran itself stages a grave provocation.

There's no contradiction between my statement and the above. The paper is discussing how a hypothetical conflict between the USA regime and Iran would likely play out from a military point of view. This hypothetical war scenario is not affected by whether the occupant of the White House is called Biden or Trump, i.e. should the USA attack today the military outcome would be similar (I'm not saying such an attack is as likely now as it used to be then, mind you).

In fact, it is likely pressure from him that has prevented Israel from bombing Iranian nuclear installations.

We've been hearing these types of reports multiple times over a timespan literally of decades - that pressure from some American president prevented Tel Aviv from taking military action against Iran.

In all this time, you'd think the zionists would have found at least one occasion on which the USA president was not pressuring them, so that they could "finally" strike Iran. So the more realistic explanation is simply that they don't feel ready to face the probable consequences of such an action.

 

[ReasonableStar75]

Sorry, I don't agree with this at all. Circumstances are completely different today. Trump had pulled out of the nuclear deal that Obama and Biden had painstakingly crafted and was being egged on to carry out airstrikes against Iran. Biden has been trying his best to find a modus vivendi and has no interest in attacking Iran unless Iran itself stages a grave provocation. In fact, it is likely pressure from him that has prevented Israel from bombing Iranian nuclear installations.

No one is avoiding Israel to attack Iran, if they are really confident they can do it, they can try it,better said.

They can do it alone like Osirak, right???????RIGHT???

US can give green light whenever they want, no one worries... just do it. What are they waiting for???

Why the US is pure hot air....

Tiny Israel is nothing in this equation, Iran is not worried.

Even if US gives their entire stock of F-35 and F-22 Israel would do nothing against Iran.

Imagine why....., Iranian "just photoshoped missiles" works. Indeed.

 

[TriptiD]

No one is avoiding Israel to attack Iran, if they are really confident they can do it, they can try it,better said.

They can do it alone like Osirak, right???????RIGHT???

US can give green light whenever they want, no one worries... just do it. What are they waiting for???

Why the US is pure hot air....

Tiny Israel is nothing in this equation, Iran is not worried.

Even if US gives their entire stock of F-35 and F-22 Israel would do nothing against Iran.

Imagine why....., Iranian "just photoshoped missiles" works. Indeed.

I am guessing you are Iranian, so I can understand why you look at the world through an Iranian lens, but, if you look at the bigger picture, the United States is trying to disentangle itself from other conflicts to focus on China. They have already exited Afghanistan. Biden would like nothing more than for Iran to sign a nuclear deal and improve relations with or at least reduce hostility towards American allies . Netanyahu is a problem India would love Iran to get off the US sanctions list so that the trade relationship can get stronger. I understand Iran is justified in being sceptical about US motives given the history, but at some point you have to bury the past and make the best decision for the future.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Biden would like nothing more than for Iran to sign a nuclear deal and improve relations with or at least reduce hostility towards American allies .

He knows this is wishful thinking however.

Netanyahu is a problem India would love Iran to get off the US sanctions list so that the trade relationship can get stronger. I understand Iran is justified in being sceptical about US motives given the history, but at some point you have to bury the past and make the best decision for the future.

And yet, Iran was just recently admitted as a full member to the BRICS. Which goes to illustrate that the relevance of USA sanctions to emerging powers is dwindling by the day.

 

[ReasonableStar75]

I am guessing you are Iranian, so I can understand why you look at the world through an Iranian lens, but, if you look at the bigger picture, the United States is trying to disentangle itself from other conflicts to focus on China. They have already exited Afghanistan. Biden would like nothing more than for Iran to sign a nuclear deal and improve relations with or at least reduce hostility towards American allies . Netanyahu is a problem India would love Iran to get off the US sanctions list so that the trade relationship can get stronger. I understand Iran is justified in being sceptical about US motives given the history, but at some point you have to bury the past and make the best decision for the future.

You are guessing bad, i m not iranian.

You fail to understand, and you are seeing this with you indian lens, this is because you have a wrong lecture.

Iran has not other choice than be the strongest, it must be in that path. Iranian long range missiles has positionated Iran in a top security position.

Green, or not green light, F-35 or F-16, nothing changes anything, US is doomed.LMAO.

"just missiles" make US bases useless, "just missiles" makes Israel useless, "Just missiles", make US aircraft carriers useless, "just missiles" makes F-35 and F-22 useless...

 

[TriptiD]

You are guessing bad, i m not iranian.

You fail to understand, and you are seeing this with you indian lens, this is because you have a wrong lecture.

Iran has not other choice than be the strongest, it must be in that path. Iranian long range missiles has positionated Iran in a top security position.

Green, or not green light, F-35 or F-16, nothing changes anything, US is doomed.LMAO.

"just missiles" make US bases useless, "just missiles" makes Israel useless, "Just missiles", make US aircraft carriers useless, "just missiles" makes F-35 and F-22 useless...

Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say. The US has no immediate plans to attack Iran, but if push came to shove, I think they have strong ABM capabilities against Iranian missiles. If Iran carried out an unprovoked missile attack against US interests, the US has the capability to devastate Iran in retaliation.

 

[TriptiD]

He knows this is wishful thinking however.

Why do you say that ? It seemed that an agreement was close before the Russians attacked Ukraine but then the Iranian side increased their demand, believing they had more leverage because of the spike in oil prices and then the deal fell through.

And yet, Iran was just recently admitted as a full member to the BRICS. Which goes to illustrate that the relevance of USA sanctions to emerging powers is dwindling by the day.

Well, BRICS is not an economic grouping, just a discussion forum at this point. India is a founder member and there has been zero tangible benefit so far. Iran has a lot to gain from removal of sanctions.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Why do you say that ? It seemed that an agreement was close before the Russians attacked Ukraine but then the Iranian side increased their demand, believing they had more leverage because of the spike in oil prices and then the deal fell through.

There was no comprehensive agreement in sight.

Let me explain: Washington does not intend to normalize relations with Iran until Iran capitulates and agrees to disarm. This does not depend on who's in charge in the USA, it's a bipartisan consensus. Pompeo's twelve conditions are very much requested from Iran by every USA administration. As a matter of fact, the Obama regime never kept its part of the JCPOA deal. Mere days or weeks after it was implemented, Obama imposed new sanctions on Iran, while Washington shills were warning European businesses not to trade with or invest in Iran under threat of USA retaliatory measures.

The idea was to dangle the illusory prospect of sanctions relief before Iran, and keep issuing more and more conditions, starting with the planned JCPOA's II and III meant to neutralize Iranian missile power and regional allies.

Well, BRICS is not an economic grouping, just a discussion forum at this point. India is a founder member and there has been zero tangible benefit so far.

This is bound to evolve. Already, the New Development Bank was established by BRICS, a common payment system is being launched and there is talk of a shared currency. BRICS membership will definitely be beneficial to Iran economically.

Iran has a lot to gain from removal of sanctions.

It isn't realistic, see above.