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

[aziqbal]

dont think its a good idea to provoke Iran and US and Israel know it

Iranians fight hard and we all know the grit and determination the Iranians had during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s

Russia wont forget Iran favour over the Shaheed 136 and China also is weighing in Irans favour

Iran is too much headache for US even Trump couldn't solve it and he shook hand with Kim INSIDE NORTH KOREA

 

[TriptiD]

There was no comprehensive agreement in sight.

Also 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.



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.



It's not realistic, see above.

Well, the nuclear deal was only meant to provide limited relief and it had been made clear from the US side the lifting of other sanctions would require Iran making concessions on other issues including support for Iranian proxies and allies and other weapons programmes. So, you are right that normalization of relations was not on the cards unless Iran made changes that the government was not willing to accept, but Iran would have accrued significant financial benefits even from the limited sanctions relief.

I know the US has been hypocritical in its Iran policy in the past, but the current administration may be Iran's best chance to get some economic concessions in return for freezing the nuclear program. Full normalization is going to require a drastic change in Iran's foreign policy, which is a decision for the Iranian people to make.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Well, the nuclear deal was only meant to provide limited relief and it had been made clear from the US side the lifting of other sanctions would require Iran making concessions on other issues including support for Iranian proxies and allies and other weapons programmes. So, you are right that normalization of relations was not on the cards unless Iran made changes that the government was not willing to accept,

Rightly so, I might add. Because the Iraqi and Libyan precedents demonstrated what disarmament upon request from the US regime will ultimately result in.

but Iran would have accrued significant financial benefits even from the limited sanctions relief.

Well, you can conduct some research into whether or not Iran benefited from that limited sanctions relief. Or take it from someone who followed the topic closely enough: Iran reaped next to nothing from it.

I know the US has been hypocritical in its Iran policy in the past, but the current administration may be Iran's best chance to get some economic concessions in return for freezing the nuclear program.

Same was said about the Obama regime, but it turned out very differently.

Full normalization is going to require a drastic change in Iran's foreign policy, which is a decision for the Iranian people to make.

For Iran, the sorts of changes Washington expects are suicidal in nature.

 

[TriptiD]

Rightly so, I might add. Because the Iraqi and Libyan precedents demonstrated what USA-imposed disarmament will ultimately result in.



Well, you can conduct some research into whether or not Iran benefited from that limited sanctions relief. Or take it from someone who followed the topic closely enough: Iran reaped next to nothing from it.



Same was said about the Obama regime, but it turned out very differently.



For Iran, the sort of changes Washington expects is suicidal in nature.

The extent of my knowledge about the deal is limited, but what i do know is 1) Israel and pro-Israeli politicians in the US were strongly opposed to the Obama deal 2)During the relief period, Iran was able to sell oil at market price instead of having to sell it clandestinely to China at a discount , though Iran did not get enough time/technical help to ramp production back up to peak levels before the 3) Israel is strongly opposed to the deal being resumed. I am not sure why Israel would lobby so hard to sink the deal if Iran is not going to get anything out of it.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Do you know where the Arabian Sea is located? Allow me break it to you:

Let me break this stupid quote to you from the article.

---

 

[Mehdipersian]

The extent of my knowledge about the deal is limited, but what i do know is 1) Israel and pro-Israeli politicians in the US were strongly opposed to the Obama deal 2)During the relief period, Iran was able to sell oil at market price instead of having to sell it clandestinely to China at a discount , though Iran did not get enough time/technical help to ramp production back up to peak levels before the 3) Israel is strongly opposed to the deal being resumed. I am not sure why Israel would lobby so hard to sink the deal if Iran is not going to get anything out of it.

Jews want war between Iran and America.

They can destroy Iran infrastructures with American blood and money.

They did it with iraq in past.

 

[LegionnairE]

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.

Japan begs to differ.

Just know his, they will attack Iran when they crafted a narrative so powerful that they will have the psychological advantage. Despite millions of Iranians dying, America will be the victim.

Look, we can agree to disagree. It's not provable or disprovable. I can't sit here and argue all day but anybody with a brain who studied history will know that I'm right.

 

[LegionnairE]

Let me break this stupid quote to you from the article.

---

View attachment 954296

This is bonkers

Author thinks Americans will park their warships in persian gulf and just sit there

 

[SalarHaqq]

Japan begs to differ.

Doesn't mean that the USA regime was dependent on it. The Pearl Harbor attack was convenient, but had it not occurred then another justification would have been invoked.

Just know his, they will attack Iran when they crafted a narrative so powerful that they will have the psychological advantage. Despite millions of Iranians dying, America will be the victim.

You're making it sound as if 44 years aren't enough to think up some suitable enough narrative, and that Washington's lack of creativity in trying to legitimize such an aggression is what held it back from going ahead with it. Needless to insist on how disconnected from reality such an assumption would be.

Look, we can agree to disagree. It's not provable or disprovable. I can't sit here and argue all day but anybody with a brain who studied history will know that I'm right.

Tell yourself that, in the meantime your contentions were successfully debunked.

This is bonkers

Author thinks Americans will park their warships in persian gulf and just sit there

No he doesn't think so at all. Read again.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Let me break this stupid quote to you from the article.

---

View attachment 954296

Are you doing this on purpose?

Nowhere is the author suggesting this is what the USA military would actually do. On the contrary, he is exposing a statement by one USA navy vice admiral Malloy, who went as far as claiming that he is "not challenged in any way, to operate [the carrier battle group] anywhere in the Middle East" including within the Persian Gulf.

Upon which Ritter describes how in the event of a conflict with Iran, the USA navy would pretty much come under devastating attack if stationed in the Persian Gulf indeed.

Relevant excerpt from the article:

Addressing the question of whether the carrier battle group would remain in the Arabian Sea, where it currently operates, or if it would transit the strait and operate in the Persian Gulf, Malloy told reporters, “If I need to

bring it inside the strait, I will do so. I’m not restricted in any way, I’m not challenged in any way, to operate her anywhere in the Middle East.”

Except he is, even if he won’t admit it. In the event of an all-out war with Iran, the USS Abraham Lincoln has about an 80% chance of survival while operating in the Arabian Sea provided its neither launching nor recovering aircraft at the time. (Iran could still locate and target the carrier group using its own surveillance assets and ballistic missiles, although the freedom of movement afforded by the Arabian Sea offers a measure of protection from attack.)

Operating inside the Persian Gulf is a whole different ballgame. Iran would overwhelm the Abraham Lincoln’s battle group with swarms of small boats, submarines, drones, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles, the carrier’s maneuverability and operational flexibility limited by its exposure to Iran’s lengthy coastline and the Gulf’s shallow waters. Such an operation would reduce the battle group’s odds of survival to about 20%; its chances of sustaining combat operations against Iran while operating in the Persian Gulf are virtually nil.

You could as well have quoted the entire passage to clarify what the author is actually saying.

 

[LegionnairE]

You're making it sound as if 44 years aren't enough to think up some suitable enough narrative,

It just wasn't your turn.

No he doesn't think so at all. Read again.

Then he's wildly overestimating Iran's capabilities. It's not even a question of strength. You couldn't even find an American carrier group let alone destroying it.

 

[SalarHaqq]

The extent of my knowledge about the deal is limited, but what i do know is 1) Israel and pro-Israeli politicians in the US were strongly opposed to the Obama deal

This was mostly a rhetoric endeavor meant to ensure that the USA regime wouldn't stop at the JCPOA but would keep up the pressure on Iran until JCPOA's II and III are agreed upon, in other terms until Iran is stripped of her main instruments of deterrence.

Another thing to know is that the goal pursued vis à vis Iran by so-called hawks and doves in Washington or Tel Aviv is identical. What they might differ upon are the means best suited to achieve that aim. This was actually admitted to a couple of years ago by a group of leading Democrats party members in a joint declaration they signed, stressing how their aims overlap with those of their Republican counterparts when it comes to Iran.

Advocates of so-called negotiations with Iran placed faith in the process inaugurated by the JCPOA as a way to gradually disarm Iran. They believed the liberal factions in Iran would be able to maintain enough influence to go along until the planned process is concluded. By contrast critics of this approach were wary that Iran might end up benefiting from sanctions relief without actually giving up her key defensive assets, postulating that revolutionary factions in Iran would preserve the upper hand in this regard. The final objective however was still a shared one.

Also I can assure you that zionists are even more dissatisfied with Iran stockpiling 60% enriched uranium like she's doing now that the JCPOA is void.

2)During the relief period, Iran was able to sell oil at market price instead of having to sell it clandestinely to China at a discount , though Iran did not get enough time/technical help to ramp production back up to peak levels before the

Oil does not make up the bulk of Iran's revenues anymore. Also as said, trade with Iran in general continued to be vehemently obstructed by the USA and its secondary sanctions, not to mention agents of the Washington regime directly threatening business entities in Europe and elsewhere to refrain from dealing with Iran or else.

3) Israel is strongly opposed to the deal being resumed. I am not sure why Israel would lobby so hard to sink the deal if Iran is not going to get anything out of it.

See above. The alternative to the JCPOA was Trump's so-called "maximum pressure" campaign. What exactly did the zionists get out that?

Zionists labeled the JCPOA a "bad deal" because the zio-American intention from the outset had been to toughen its terms for Iran and to go on neutralizing Iran's missile power and regional alliance system.

The JCPOA was a slippery slope, an intended (from the zio-American perspective) springboard towards follow-on deals which would have seen Iran part with much of her defensive and power projection tools.

Had it not been for an institution called Supreme Leadership, as well as one called IRGC, politicians in charge back then would have ceded so much during negotiations that Netanyahu himself would have ended up calling it the best deal in history.

One needs to separate instrumentalized rhetoric from actual policy here, while taking into account the dynamics underlying the JCPOA.

Here some instructive reads related to the subject:

For Israel, new Iran deal perhaps better than no deal at all​

https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2022/04/israel-new-iran-deal-perhaps-better-no-deal-all

Why Israel (Sort of) Misses the Iran Deal​

Why Israel (Sort of) Misses the Iran Deal

Given the nuclear program’s advancement under the U.S. maximum pressure policy, a raft of Israeli officials now say the JCPOA was better than nothing—but rejoining it will be difficult.

www.washingtoninstitute.org

---

It just wasn't your turn.

The USA regime never waited this long before putting into practice plans for military attack on another country.

Iran had been included by Bush junior among his so-called "axis of evil". Nations on that list was subjected to wide scale aggression save two: Iran and Korea. Because both of these are too hard to crack.

Then he's wildly overestimating Iran's capabilities. It's not even a question of strength. You couldn't even find an American carrier group let alone destroying it.

What's this have to do with the question at hand? If you want to comment on the article, read it.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

This is bonkers

Author thinks Americans will park their warships in persian gulf and just sit there

Plus before that we will tell the Ukrainians to move their MLRS systems to about 20 feet from the active front line. Staying miles back makes little sense.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Plus before that we will tell the Ukrainians to move their MLRS systems to about 20 feet from the active front line. Staying miles back makes little sense.

Yes, go tell that to vice admiral Malloy who claimed a carrier group could be operated unchallenged in the Persian Gulf.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Yes, go tell that to vice admiral Malloy who claimed a carrier group could be operated unchallenged in the Persian Gulf.

He didn't say that it was specifically during wartime.

They asked him back in 2019 if they'd ever send a carrier back into the Persian Gulf again and he said he would if necessary.

..and here is one going a year later in 2020

US carrier transits Strait of Hormuz amid tensions with Iran

The U.S. Navy says the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier has transited the Strait of Hormuz as tensions between the United States and Iran continue to simmer.

apnews.com

US carrier transits Strait of Hormuz amid tensions with Iran​

USS Nimitz Flight Operations In The Persian Gulf (2020)​