Tillerson out, Pompeo in, this change is about Iran

[Blue In Green]

Are you serious? You should read up on AIPAC. Also read up on this: it's been nearly scrubbed from the web, guess by whom? Click on the pdf.
https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/citation.aspx?PubId=3670

Jesus Kastor... How did you find such a gem? it's really hard to find scholarly pieces like these that put the Israeli control and influence in the US into the light.

Thank you very much, I will make sure to save it and reference it when I can. Truly you did a great service (really I mean it).

 

[Kastor]

Jesus Kastor... How did you find such a gem? it's really hard to find scholarly pieces like these that put the Israeli control and influence in the US into the light.

Thank you very much, I will make sure to save it and reference it when I can. Truly you did a great service (really I mean it).

Ha, I wish I could take credit for it, both of those professors were forced to retire, "The Lobby" also made Harvard take its seal of the paper. It's also been scrubbed from the web by putting multiple other leads in front of it if you search for it. I would not have believed it myself if I hadn't witnessed it first hand.

 

[Nevsky]

Iran should turn to Russia, China after Bolton nomination - senior MP


DUBAI, March 24 (Reuters) - Iran should strengthen ties with Russia and China to counter a tougher U.S. stance expected after President Donald Trump’s appointment of John Bolton as national security adviser, a senior parliament member was quoted as saying on Saturday.

Some commentators see Bolton’s nomination as another nail in the coffin of the Obama-era agreement between Iran and world powers to limit Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, already cast into grave doubt by Trump himself.

“Americans are pushing for harder policies towards the Islamic Republic of Iran and we need to strengthen our view towards the East, especially China and Russia,” Alaeddin Boroujerdi, head of parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, told ISNA news agency.

“The use of hardline anti-Iran elements indicates that Americans are pushing for more pressure on Iran, ... mainly as a kick-back to Zionists (Israel) and Saudi Arabia,” Boroujerdi said, referring to Bolton who is widely seen as a pro-Israel “hawk” in the Middle East.

Separately, Iran denounced U.S. charges and sanctions announced against nine Iranians and an Iranian company for allegedly attempting to hack into hundreds of universities worldwide, dozens of firms and parts of the U.S. government on behalf of Tehran’s government.

Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi said the move was “provocative, illegitimate, and without any justifiable reason and another sign of the hostility of the (U.S.) ruling circles towards the Iranian nation”, the state news agency IRNA reported.

“America will certainly fail in preventing the scientific development of the Iranian people through sanctions,” Qasemi said. (Reporting by Dubai newsroom; Editing by Mark Potter)

 

[Gomig-21]

@Avicenna you make a lot of sense but personally I think Trump is too pussy to start a war.

Before I say what I'm about to say, I'm putting out a disclaimer: never would I want to see it come to blows, so any type of war against Iran is not something I would ever want to see. That being said, I'm sure you realize there are different types of wars, and if there will be any type of military action, it will only be in the form of 'round the clock' air strikes. There won't be any "Iraq invasion" type strategy here. There are certain "valued targets" as you well know that will be listed in order of importance. I wouldn't be surprised if the US plans an attempt at a regime change with a separate covert action after they take out the Mullah residences and probably target certain valued government buildings. There could very well be a plan for a certain group within Iran (whether it comes in from Iraq or even Syria) that would be poised to take control of the government and the people within the ensuing chaos of multiple and crippling air strikes.

People can rag on the US all they want, but those in the know realize that its aerial punch is nothing to laugh about, quite the opposite. I wouldn't even doubt if Israeli aircraft would be flying with American colors in separate but coordinated formations and strikes. US strike munition is the most precise and most powerful in the world, so it's no joke by any means. Not only that, coordination and mission planning will most certainly start with eliminating and suppression of air defense systems, something the US has been doing since 1947 and they refined it in 1966 in Vietnam. Now it excels at it with the most advanced technology out there. They've only been ahead of everyone else in SEAD missions since then and what's the most potent AD system in Iran, the S-300VM? Gonna need a minimum of 150 batteries and a stockpile of 8000 missiles without losing a single battery in the malay. Does Russia even have that number? Gonna have to take out what will most likely be a preliminary and overwhelming attack of maybe 5,000 tomahawks that will target all military airports and command centers. That's always been the US' modus operendi and they will be overwhelming attacks in a manner that's probably never been seen before. UCAVs strikes following the cruise missiles and then you'll see E/A-18G Growlers sending out all sorts of EW signals and jamming the entire coastal front where they'll be followed by E-2C Hawkeys and E-3 Sentrys backing up a slew of F-35s just lurking waiting for Iranian Tomcats to get within their radars and we know the Tomcats are probably not going to see the F-35s until they hear their own MAWS lighting up from AIM-120s coming at them. But prior to this point, they'll most likely fly two dozen B2 Spirits at a much higher altitude lobbing JDAMs to take out all the runways and towers and any aircraft that are exposed. Even ones in hangars will get bunker busters if the Tomahawks missed them. The B2s would probably drop $1B worth of munitions and there would still be 6000 times that stockpile left over. This is how scary this whole thing is. Follow any missed targets with B1-Bs dropping MOABs on certain hard targets and escaping at mach-3. This is almost impossible to defend.

By then, whatever aircraft they choose to perform the interdiction missions with to take out the "valued" targets will commence and won't stop no matter how many sorties it takes to accomplish all missions. While all of this is going on, there's also the threat of any number of Ohio and Virginia Class submarines firing their own slew of Tomahawks and harpoons which would more likely be the US' strategy to taking on the Iranian navy. The prospect of the damage that can be caused by those submarines is beyond what most distractors can imagine and are practically impossible to defend without an equivalent platform.

This is the scary type of war that the US (even without the help of the Israelis) can easily mount and wouldn't even make a dent in the budget. God forbid this ever happens, but when the craziest lunatic who said publicly on TV that he would've bombed Iran 5 or 6 years ago and who's headline in the newspaper the day before Obama made the deal with your guys was "to stop Iran's bomb, bomb Iran" just became the national security adviser ..... is frankly a very scary prospect. If there is ever a war mongering scumbag, this is him. The orange baboon couldn't have found anyone worst. And with the way Trump is sorely in need of some foreign policy victory with the looming meeting between him and Kim Jong Un which is bound to fail miserably since we know that an already nuclear NK is not giving that up in exchange for peanuts and more importantly this NSA change comes squarely after Netanyahu's visit to the US, I would never assume this is a bluff just because it hasn't happened yet.

My only question would be how and what will this clown of an administration uses as an excuse for going to war. Not living up to the spirit of the agreement won't cut the cheese. They'll need to come up with something much worst to blame on Iran and we all know that doesn't take much for the US to do so. So why would the aforementioned type of war not be a huge possibility with just the way things have developed in the last month and how's Iran going to defend itself against a barrage like that?

 

[Kastor]

Are you in Cali?

Opposite coast actually....

 

[Blue In Green]

Before I say what I'm about to say, I'm putting out a disclaimer: never would I want to see it come to blows, so any type of war against Iran is not something I would ever want to see. That being said, I'm sure you realize there are different types of wars, and if there will be any type of military action, it will only be in the form of 'round the clock' air strikes. There won't be any "Iraq invasion" type strategy here. There are certain "valued targets" as you well know that will be listed in order of importance. I wouldn't be surprised if the US plans an attempt at a regime change with a separate covert action after they take out the Mullah residences and probably target certain valued government buildings. There could very well be a plan for a certain group within Iran (whether it comes in from Iraq or even Syria) that would be poised to take control of the government and the people within the ensuing chaos of multiple and crippling air strikes.

People can rag on the US all they want, but those in the know realize that its aerial punch is nothing to laugh about, quite the opposite. I wouldn't even doubt if Israeli aircraft would be flying with American colors in separate but coordinated formations and strikes. US strike munition is the most precise and most powerful in the world, so it's no joke by any means. Not only that, coordination and mission planning will most certainly start with eliminating and suppression of air defense systems, something the US has been doing since 1947 and they refined it in 1966 in Vietnam. Now it excels at it with the most advanced technology out there. They've only been ahead of everyone else in SEAD missions since then and what's the most potent AD system in Iran, the S-300VM? Gonna need a minimum of 150 batteries and a stockpile of 8000 missiles without losing a single battery in the malay. Does Russia even have that number? Gonna have to take out what will most likely be a preliminary and overwhelming attack of maybe 5,000 tomahawks that will target all military airports and command centers. That's always been the US' modus operendi and they will be overwhelming attacks in a manner that's probably never been seen before. UCAVs strikes following the cruise missiles and then you'll see E/A-18G Growlers sending out all sorts of EW signals and jamming the entire coastal front where they'll be followed by E-2C Hawkeys and E-3 Sentrys backing up a slew of F-35s just lurking waiting for Iranian Tomcats to get within their radars and we know the Tomcats are probably not going to see the F-35s until they hear their own MAWS lighting up from AIM-120s coming at them. But prior to this point, they'll most likely fly two dozen B2 Spirits at a much higher altitude lobbing JDAMs to take out all the runways and towers and any aircraft that are exposed. Even ones in hangars will get bunker busters if the Tomahawks missed them. The B2s would probably drop $1B worth of munitions and there would still be 6000 times that stockpile left over. This is how scary this whole thing is. Follow any missed targets with B1-Bs dropping MOABs on certain hard targets and escaping at mach-3. This is almost impossible to defend.

By then, whatever aircraft they choose to perform the interdiction missions with to take out the "valued" targets will commence and won't stop no matter how many sorties it takes to accomplish all missions. While all of this is going on, there's also the threat of any number of Ohio and Virginia Class submarines firing their own slew of Tomahawks and harpoons which would more likely be the US' strategy to taking on the Iranian navy. The prospect of the damage that can be caused by those submarines is beyond what most distractors can imagine and are practically impossible to defend without an equivalent platform.

This is the scary type of war that the US (even without the help of the Israelis) can easily mount and wouldn't even make a dent in the budget. God forbid this ever happens, but when the craziest lunatic who said publicly on TV that he would've bombed Iran 5 or 6 years ago and who's headline in the newspaper the day before Obama made the deal with your guys was "to stop Iran's bomb, bomb Iran" just became the national security adviser ..... is frankly a very scary prospect. If there is ever a war mongering scumbag, this is him. The orange baboon couldn't have found anyone worst. And with the way Trump is sorely in need of some foreign policy victory with the looming meeting between him and Kim Jong Un which is bound to fail miserably since we know that an already nuclear NK is not giving that up in exchange for peanuts and more importantly this NSA change comes squarely after Netanyahu's visit to the US, I would never assume this is a bluff just because it hasn't happened yet.

My only question would be how and what will this clown of an administration uses as an excuse for going to war. Not living up to the spirit of the agreement won't cut the cheese. They'll need to come up with something much worst to blame on Iran and we all know that doesn't take much for the US to do so. So why would the aforementioned type of war not be a huge possibility with just the way things have developed in the last month and how's Iran going to defend itself against a barrage like that?

I was always lead to believe that such an attack would be costly and not worth it. How could such a large scale operation out no dent into the budget?

 

[Avicenna]

I was always lead to believe that such an attack would be costly and not worth it. How could such a large scale operation out no dent into the budget?

@Gomig-21's post is excellent. Bolton was who I was afraid of....

 

[zartosht]

My only question would be how and what will this clown of an administration uses as an excuse for going to war. Not living up to the spirit of the agreement won't cut the cheese. They'll need to come up with something much worst to blame on Iran and we all know that doesn't take much for the US to do so. So why would the aforementioned type of war not be a huge possibility with just the way things have developed in the last month and how's Iran going to defend itself against a barrage like that?

What your post completely omits is devastating Iranian retaliation options. And the fact that none of the American military men are AT ALL enthusiastic about a war with iran.

Trump is trying to renogiate the nuclear deal in his dreams. the only chance of that would be to bluff, Puff out his chest and try to scare iran into surrendering.

W Bush had a much bigger stick in his hand. he tried this strategy at a time where the American president had a blank cheque in regards to military intervention. and had actual plans to attack iran. and iran was in a much weaker position and not as well prepared or equipped militarily. If its wasn't for iran making them bleed like pigs in Iraq, there will may have been a war.

The americans do not have a military option on iran anymore. Iran could very easily anahilate their 5th fleet. Their bases all around the region. Slaughter their troops in Afghanistan/Iraq and Syria. Absolutely demolish the tiny but tightly populated Zionist entity with accurate missiles.

even americans own wargames have shown what potential humiliation they could face. That is why nobody in the American military is enthusiastic about this. They have even outright explicitly said they want the US to remain in the deal.

Bolton Is a boogey man to scare iran into shooting itself in the foot. Nobody in iran fears the US, and Iranian policy makers have consistently shown that psychological pressure does not work on them.

Yes the Americans have a powerful military. But to take on a regional power that has been preparing for such a scenario for decades, on its own turf is not a good idea. the americans post ww2 history is of taking on defenceless people who cannot shoot back. and when even faced with a adversary who actually shoots back despite the americans having overwhelming advantage in everything. it has ended in American failure or outright defeat (Vietnam, korea, Iraq/afghan insurgencies to name a few)

The americans could very well lose a carrier if they miscalculate and completely shatter the image of their military.

Even north korea called out the orange monkeys little bluff when he was puffing his chest for a while and fake news were having orgasms over it.... hes not going to scare iran.

 

[Tokhme khar]

Correct. The window of opportunity to attack Iran or the DPRK long closed. Russia and China will get involved. Nothing can happen now other than the US reneging on the JCPOA, as the worst thing they can do to damage themselves, because then Iran officially attains that week or month long nuke breakout status.......lol

What your post completely omits is devastating Iranian retaliation options. And the fact that none of the American military men are AT ALL enthusiastic about a war with iran.

Trump is trying to renogiate the nuclear deal in his dreams. the only chance of that would be to bluff, Puff out his chest and try to scare iran into surrendering.

W Bush had a much bigger stick in his hand. he tried this strategy at a time where the American president had a blank cheque in regards to military intervention. and had actual plans to attack iran. and iran was in a much weaker position and not as well prepared or equipped militarily. If its wasn't for iran making them bleed like pigs in Iraq, there will may have been a war.

The americans do not have a military option on iran anymore. Iran could very easily anahilate their 5th fleet. Their bases all around the region. Slaughter their troops in Afghanistan/Iraq and Syria. Absolutely demolish the tiny but tightly populated Zionist entity with accurate missiles.

even americans own wargames have shown what potential humiliation they could face. That is why nobody in the American military is enthusiastic about this. They have even outright explicitly said they want the US to remain in the deal.

Bolton Is a boogey man to scare iran into shooting itself in the foot. Nobody in iran fears the US, and Iranian policy makers have consistently shown that psychological pressure does not work on them.

Yes the Americans have a powerful military. But to take on a regional power that has been preparing for such a scenario for decades, on its own turf is not a good idea. the americans post ww2 history is of taking on defenceless people who cannot shoot back. and when even faced with a adversary who actually shoots back despite the americans having overwhelming advantage in everything. it has ended in American failure or outright defeat (Vietnam, korea, Iraq/afghan insurgencies to name a few)

The americans could very well lose a carrier if they miscalculate and completely shatter the image of their military.

Even north korea called out the orange monkeys little bluff when he was puffing his chest for a while and fake news were having orgasms over it.... hes not going to scare iran.

 

[Avicenna]

What your post completely omits is devastating Iranian retaliation options. And the fact that none of the American military men are AT ALL enthusiastic about a war with iran.

Trump is trying to renogiate the nuclear deal in his dreams. the only chance of that would be to bluff, Puff out his chest and try to scare iran into surrendering.

W Bush had a much bigger stick in his hand. he tried this strategy at a time where the American president had a blank cheque in regards to military intervention. and had actual plans to attack iran. and iran was in a much weaker position and not as well prepared or equipped militarily. If its wasn't for iran making them bleed like pigs in Iraq, there will may have been a war.

The americans do not have a military option on iran anymore. Iran could very easily anahilate their 5th fleet. Their bases all around the region. Slaughter their troops in Afghanistan/Iraq and Syria. Absolutely demolish the tiny but tightly populated Zionist entity with accurate missiles.

even americans own wargames have shown what potential humiliation they could face. That is why nobody in the American military is enthusiastic about this. They have even outright explicitly said they want the US to remain in the deal.

Bolton Is a boogey man to scare iran into shooting itself in the foot. Nobody in iran fears the US, and Iranian policy makers have consistently shown that psychological pressure does not work on them.

Yes the Americans have a powerful military. But to take on a regional power that has been preparing for such a scenario for decades, on its own turf is not a good idea. the americans post ww2 history is of taking on defenceless people who cannot shoot back. and when even faced with a adversary who actually shoots back despite the americans having overwhelming advantage in everything. it has ended in American failure or outright defeat (Vietnam, korea, Iraq/afghan insurgencies to name a few)

The americans could very well lose a carrier if they miscalculate and completely shatter the image of their military.

Even north korea called out the orange monkeys little bluff when he was puffing his chest for a while and fake news were having orgasms over it.... hes not going to scare iran.

I doubt it friend. My sympathies are with Iran. It is being unfairly targeted by Israeli interests IMO.

However, do not underestimate the US and its military capabilities.

Iran is toast if the US wanted to do something.

 

[Dalit]

War is certainly coming. The nuke accord will be thrown into the bin. The Europeans cannot do much.

The Zionists are pulling the strings. America belongs to Zionists.

 

[AmirPatriot]

That being said, I'm sure you realize there are different types of wars, and if there will be any type of military action, it will only be in the form of 'round the clock' air strikes. There won't be any "Iraq invasion" type strategy here.

Iran's whole strategy for the past decade or two has been to make this type of war impossible. There will be no "limited" war, with only airstrikes (albeit, a lot of them). Iran will make sure everyone feels the pain.

The easiest thing I can bring up is the missiles. The US had total control of Iraqi airspace in 1991 and 2003 (and frankly, between them too) yet couldn't stop the scud launchers. So the BM force is survivable. Those BMs can retaliate to anyone hosting those aircraft - the Israelis, Saudis, Emiratis, Qataris, whatever. I'm talking strategic level destruction, with potentially thousands of BMs being launched, a lot of which will go to oil production facilities.

Speaking of oil, Iran can (temporarily) close the Straits of Hormuz with small mine laying boats and ships, as well as a huge number FAC and dozens of submarines. There are also a large number of coastal missile batteries. These assets could also threaten a US aircraft carrier. A Khalij Fars ASHBM could inflict an embarrassing mission kill. Closing the straits for even a week would decimate the world economy. The panic alone will accelerate whatever actual economic damage is done.

Not to mention Iran has a legion of proxies across the region it can call to its help, to cause absolute havoc for US forces in Iraq and Syria, as well as Hezbollah's obvious threat to Israel.

There could very well be a plan for a certain group within Iran (whether it comes in from Iraq or even Syria) that would be poised to take control of the government and the people within the ensuing chaos of multiple and crippling air strikes.

No chance. It has been tried numerous times by Saddam, and failed every time, in the weakest state of the government.

what's the most potent AD system in Iran, the S-300VM?

S-300PMU2.

Follow any missed targets with B1-Bs dropping MOABs on certain hard targets and escaping at mach-3

Mach 3??? No more than Mach 1.2, my friend.

So why would the aforementioned type of war not be a huge possibility with just the way things have developed in the last month

Because, like I said, Trump does not have the will. He ran the campaign to expand the Trump brand. Now he's in the white house he's getting slated by the media, congress, and is making consistently unpopular policies. The only way he could make it worse is by starting a big war. Trump is a huge narcissist and won't want to be barraged by the media any more.

Contrary to popular opinion, it is actually hard to run a war from a work standpoint., especially as a president. Do you honestly think Trump will put the work in? Or just sit in front of the TV watching Foxandfriends, tweeting to everyone to join him?

 

[Dalit]

Iran's whole strategy for the past decade or two has been to make this type of war impossible. There will be no "limited" war, with only airstrikes (albeit, a lot of them). Iran will make sure everyone feels the pain.

The easiest thing I can bring up is the missiles. The US had total control of Iraqi airspace in 1991 and 2003 (and frankly, between them too) yet couldn't stop the scud launchers. So the BM force is survivable. Those BMs can retaliate to anyone hosting those aircraft - the Israelis, Saudis, Emiratis, Qataris, whatever. I'm talking strategic level destruction, with potentially thousands of BMs being launched, a lot of which will go to oil production facilities.

Speaking of oil, Iran can (temporarily) close the Straits of Hormuz with small mine laying boats and ships, as well as a huge number FAC and dozens of submarines. There are also a large number of coastal missile batteries. These assets could also threaten a US aircraft carrier. A Khalij Fars ASHBM could inflict an embarrassing mission kill.

Not to mention Iran has a legion of proxies across the region it can call to its help, to cause absolute havoc for US forces in Iraq and Syria, as well as Hezbollah's obvious threat to Israel.



No chance. It has been tried numerous times by Saddam, and failed every time, in the weakest state of the government.



S-300PMU2.



Mach 3??? No more than Mach 1.2, my friend.



Because, like I said, Trump does not have the will. He ran the campaign to expand the Trump brand. Now he's in the white house he's getting slated by the media, congress, and is making consistently unpopular policies. The only way he could make it worse is by starting a big war. Trump is a huge narcissist and won't want to be barraged by the media any more.

Contrary to popular opinion, it is actually hard to run a war from a work standpoint., especially as a president. Do you honestly think Trump will put the work in? Or just sit in front of the TV watching Foxandfriends, tweeting to everyone to join him?

In other words, Iran has the Yanks by their balls.

 

[Avicenna]

Opposite coast actually....

I am a New Yorker my self now residing in the Lone Star state.

 

[raptor22]

Iran's whole strategy for the past decade or two has been to make this type of war impossible. There will be no "limited" war, with only airstrikes (albeit, a lot of them). Iran will make sure everyone feels the pain.

The easiest thing I can bring up is the missiles. The US had total control of Iraqi airspace in 1991 and 2003 (and frankly, between them too) yet couldn't stop the scud launchers. So the BM force is survivable. Those BMs can retaliate to anyone hosting those aircraft - the Israelis, Saudis, Emiratis, Qataris, whatever. I'm talking strategic level destruction, with potentially thousands of BMs being launched, a lot of which will go to oil production facilities.

Speaking of oil, Iran can (temporarily) close the Straits of Hormuz with small mine laying boats and ships, as well as a huge number FAC and dozens of submarines. There are also a large number of coastal missile batteries. These assets could also threaten a US aircraft carrier. A Khalij Fars ASHBM could inflict an embarrassing mission kill. Closing the straits for even a week would decimate the world economy. The panic alone will accelerate whatever actual economic damage is done.

Not to mention Iran has a legion of proxies across the region it can call to its help, to cause absolute havoc for US forces in Iraq and Syria, as well as Hezbollah's obvious threat to Israel.



No chance. It has been tried numerous times by Saddam, and failed every time, in the weakest state of the government.



S-300PMU2.



Mach 3??? No more than Mach 1.2, my friend.



Because, like I said, Trump does not have the will. He ran the campaign to expand the Trump brand. Now he's in the white house he's getting slated by the media, congress, and is making consistently unpopular policies. The only way he could make it worse is by starting a big war. Trump is a huge narcissist and won't want to be barraged by the media any more.

Contrary to popular opinion, it is actually hard to run a war from a work standpoint., especially as a president. Do you honestly think Trump will put the work in? Or just sit in front of the TV watching Foxandfriends, tweeting to everyone to join him?

We could simply sink an oil tanker in middle of strait accidentally ...
that would do the job ..