What's new

US Attack on Iran Would Turn Into Protracted Conflict, Engulf Mid East – Scholar

Möbius Curve

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
414
Reaction score
0
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
08:09 22.01.2019

The Trump administration is unlikely to engage in a direct confrontation with the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mojtaba Jelalzadeh, an international policy specialist at the Islamic Azad University told Sputnik, commenting on the White House's alleged search for options to strike Iran in 2018.

Iran is ready to repel any attack, but it will come at a price for Tehran, Mojtaba Jelalzadeh, an international policy specialist at the Tehran-based Islamic Azad University, told Sputnik Persian.

On 13 January the Wall Street Journal broke that the John Bolton-led National Security Council (NSC) had requested that the Pentagon outline options for a potential strike on Iran back in 2018, in response to September attacks on the US Embassy in Iraq, launched by a military group allegedly aligned with Tehran.

"Being an independent, stable and military state, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) has its own defence potential. Iran has worked out a defence plan and strategy. It is completely wrong to say that Iran will not be able to resist the alleged attack. However, it is similarly erroneous to believe that Tehran will achieve an easy victory", Jelalzadeh emphasised.

The scholar pointed out that over the last 40 years, the IRI had managed to revive its military capabilities by boosting domestic industries and importing technologies from other countries.


According to Jelalzadeh, one should bear in mind that, first, there will be no short-term strike without an appropriate response from the IRI; if a military conflict starts, it will be a long-term one and it will not end quickly. Second, Iranian politicians and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officials have repeatedly warned that the potential conflict would engulf many other regional states in the Middle East, he underscored.

According to some estimates, currently the number of Iranian regular troops amounts to between 540,000 and 900,000. The ambiguity surrounding the numerical strength is explained by the almost absolute secrecy of the information concerning the country's armed forces in Iran.

The Basij, a paramilitary volunteer militia, plays a major role in the IRI defence doctrine. The Basij is subordinate to the IRGC. Its main task is to ensure the country's domestic defence. The force's backbone comprises 2,500 Ashura (male) and Al-Zahra (female) battalions, numbering 400 soldiers each. There are at least 1 million well-trained Basij fighters, while in total, the country's Basij system engages more than 12 million Iranians.


Commenting on the White House's request to the Pentagon, Jelalzadeh singled out National Security Adviser John Bolton, known for his hawkish stance towards the IRI and support for the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), which is designated as a terrorist organisation in Iran.

On 26 March 2015, The New York Times published Bolton's op-ed, eloquently titled To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran. Later, on 1 July 2017, Bolton vowed to "change the regime" in Iran at an MEK gathering.

"While analysing this request, we must consider the prerequisites and the role of some individuals in determining the US foreign policy", Jelalzadeh noted, stressing that the Trump administration had adopted a one-sided approach toward Tehran.

According to the scholar, American neoconservatives and some hawkish Republicans are seeking to boost US international positions through the use of force. However, he presumed that the US "ruling elite" would not engage in a direct confrontation with Iran, exerting psychological pressure on Tehran instead.



"According to the [American] ruling elite, the United States welcomes military action in countries that are not their allies", he said. "But in practice, questions arise as to whether they are capable of taking these actions? Will their actions be supported both domestically and internationally? For how long can the US wage the [potential] war? Naturally, a military attack against Iran, a stable state, will be not to naught in the Middle Eastern troublesome region".

The Wall Street Journal cited former US administration officials who said that they had been shocked by the White House's request. The media outlet specified that it was not clear whether any proposals had been provided to the president's national security team by the Pentagon or whether Donald Trump knew about the request.

For his part, Garret Marquis, an NSC spokesman, neither confirmed nor denied the media outlet's report, saying that the council "coordinates policy and provides the president with options to anticipate and respond to a variety of threats".

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201901221071688991-us-iran-conflict/
 
Before I got orders to deploy for Desert Storm, I read similar about Iraq.

Yeah...Yah...I know...Iran is not Iraq. But neither is today's US military compares to the US military that took out Iraq.
 
Before I got orders to deploy for Desert Storm, I read similar about Iraq.

Yeah...Yah...I know...Iran is not Iraq. But neither is today's US military compares to the US military that took out Iraq.

well said.

08:09 22.01.2019

The Trump administration is unlikely to engage in a direct confrontation with the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mojtaba Jelalzadeh, an international policy specialist at the Islamic Azad University told Sputnik, commenting on the White House's alleged search for options to strike Iran in 2018.

Iran is ready to repel any attack, but it will come at a price for Tehran, Mojtaba Jelalzadeh, an international policy specialist at the Tehran-based Islamic Azad University, told Sputnik Persian.

On 13 January the Wall Street Journal broke that the John Bolton-led National Security Council (NSC) had requested that the Pentagon outline options for a potential strike on Iran back in 2018, in response to September attacks on the US Embassy in Iraq, launched by a military group allegedly aligned with Tehran.

"Being an independent, stable and military state, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) has its own defence potential. Iran has worked out a defence plan and strategy. It is completely wrong to say that Iran will not be able to resist the alleged attack. However, it is similarly erroneous to believe that Tehran will achieve an easy victory", Jelalzadeh emphasised.

The scholar pointed out that over the last 40 years, the IRI had managed to revive its military capabilities by boosting domestic industries and importing technologies from other countries.


According to Jelalzadeh, one should bear in mind that, first, there will be no short-term strike without an appropriate response from the IRI; if a military conflict starts, it will be a long-term one and it will not end quickly. Second, Iranian politicians and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officials have repeatedly warned that the potential conflict would engulf many other regional states in the Middle East, he underscored.

According to some estimates, currently the number of Iranian regular troops amounts to between 540,000 and 900,000. The ambiguity surrounding the numerical strength is explained by the almost absolute secrecy of the information concerning the country's armed forces in Iran.

The Basij, a paramilitary volunteer militia, plays a major role in the IRI defence doctrine. The Basij is subordinate to the IRGC. Its main task is to ensure the country's domestic defence. The force's backbone comprises 2,500 Ashura (male) and Al-Zahra (female) battalions, numbering 400 soldiers each. There are at least 1 million well-trained Basij fighters, while in total, the country's Basij system engages more than 12 million Iranians.


Commenting on the White House's request to the Pentagon, Jelalzadeh singled out National Security Adviser John Bolton, known for his hawkish stance towards the IRI and support for the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), which is designated as a terrorist organisation in Iran.

On 26 March 2015, The New York Times published Bolton's op-ed, eloquently titled To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran. Later, on 1 July 2017, Bolton vowed to "change the regime" in Iran at an MEK gathering.

"While analysing this request, we must consider the prerequisites and the role of some individuals in determining the US foreign policy", Jelalzadeh noted, stressing that the Trump administration had adopted a one-sided approach toward Tehran.

According to the scholar, American neoconservatives and some hawkish Republicans are seeking to boost US international positions through the use of force. However, he presumed that the US "ruling elite" would not engage in a direct confrontation with Iran, exerting psychological pressure on Tehran instead.



"According to the [American] ruling elite, the United States welcomes military action in countries that are not their allies", he said. "But in practice, questions arise as to whether they are capable of taking these actions? Will their actions be supported both domestically and internationally? For how long can the US wage the [potential] war? Naturally, a military attack against Iran, a stable state, will be not to naught in the Middle Eastern troublesome region".

The Wall Street Journal cited former US administration officials who said that they had been shocked by the White House's request. The media outlet specified that it was not clear whether any proposals had been provided to the president's national security team by the Pentagon or whether Donald Trump knew about the request.

For his part, Garret Marquis, an NSC spokesman, neither confirmed nor denied the media outlet's report, saying that the council "coordinates policy and provides the president with options to anticipate and respond to a variety of threats".

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201901221071688991-us-iran-conflict/

A : these claims by the iranians are unsupported with even the slighest bit of evidence.
B : we'd best made sure we take out the entire iranian military capability within say 2 weeks, *if* and when that becomes what we end up doing with Iran as NATO, like we did with Saddam's army, except yes, we may need more firepower or better firepower to deal with Iran than with Saddam's Iraq, so that Muslims are taught they can not increase what we need them to stop supporting (violence outside their borders caused by Iran) as a way to prove to the many other militant muslims around the world in nations other than Iran,
that our demands and threats to enforce those demands can be countered simply by increasing the intensity of what we need them to change.
 
Before I got orders to deploy for Desert Storm, I read similar about Iraq.

Yeah...Yah...I know...Iran is not Iraq. But neither is today's US military compares to the US military that took out Iraq.
Iraq local population was against Saddam ... Iran's population are with the government ... Iraq did not had any presence in any other country ... Iran has presence in Iraq, Syria and Yemen ...

It will be really easy to destroy Iran and its infrastructure but you can't control Iran without facing severe retaliation and attacks on your assets in whole middle east ...

Remember Iran is also spiritual capital of shia muslims so you will be creating equivallent of Taliban (moderate), Al-Qaeda (extremists) and ISIS (Hard core terrorists) in Shia sect as well ... If objective is destruction of the region then yes its doable ... If objective is to control Iran or change in regime ... It can't be done unless population turned against the current regime ...
 
Muslims are taught they can not increase what we need them to stop supporting (violence outside their borders caused by Iran) as a way to prove to the many other militant muslims around the world in nations other than Iran,
that our demands and threats to enforce those demands can be countered simply by increasing the intensity of what we need them to change.
whoa! Are you authorized to admit that this here war is actually a war on Islam?

In any case if what you admit is true then you need not worry about Iran because they would be standing shoulder to shoulder with you all to fight other Muslim sects. I have always suspected them to be a Trojan horse or a fifth column

are you a peacefan or a bloodthirsty crusader or a keyboard warrior?
 
Iraq local population was against Saddam ... Iran's population are with the government ... Iraq did not had any presence in any other country ... Iran has presence in Iraq, Syria and Yemen ...

It will be really easy to destroy Iran and its infrastructure but you can't control Iran without facing severe retaliation and attacks on your assets in whole middle east ...

Remember Iran is also spiritual capital of shia muslims so you will be creating equivallent of Taliban (moderate), Al-Qaeda (extremists) and ISIS (Hard core terrorists) in Shia sect as well ... If objective is destruction of the region then yes its doable ... If objective is to control Iran or change in regime ... It can't be done unless population turned against the current regime ...
This is not about invading Iran, so popular support for and solidarity with the government is essentially meaningless.
 
Exactly right! It is about keeping alive the illusion of a conflict with Iran
Right now, everyone knows that if there is a US conflict against Iran, it will most likely be confined to the air and the sea. In these two arenas, Iran WILL lose.
 
Its been defeated and now its seeking to negotiate an uneventful exit with the Taliban.
No, the US military HAVE NOT been 'defeated' in Afghanistan. We withdraw because of political pressures, not because the Taliban offered any credible resistance to US.

People like you need to broaden the scope of the word 'defeat' out of your own personal need to portray the US military in as negative a light as possible, not because you made any real effort in studying the military dimensions of warfare in general, let alone in Afghanistan in particular. Sure, the stale cliche 'graveyard of empires' is attractive. But that is all it is -- a cliche.
 
You withdraw once you've been defeated, like Vietnam, Afghanistan. You stay if you've won, like in Germany, Japan.

It maybe a bit too hard for you to swallow but the US military has lost its longest war ever. That's why there are no good options left for its politicians and they're looking for an armistice with the enemy. A mild, political way of bloodless surrender.

No, the US military HAVE NOT been 'defeated' in Afghanistan. We withdraw because of political pressures, not because the Taliban offered any credible resistance to US.

People like you need to broaden the scope of the word 'defeat' out of your own personal need to portray the US military in as negative a light as possible, not because you made any real effort in studying the military dimensions of warfare in general, let alone in Afghanistan in particular. Sure, the stale cliche 'graveyard of empires' is attractive. But that is all it is -- a cliche.
 
Its been defeated and now its seeking to negotiate an uneventful exit with the Taliban.
No, it is not! I am sorry to say that they are just playing games just like they did with Iraqi Saddam Hussain. "Your" Pakistan needs to hurry-up with the border fencing in order to be saved from accusations of cross border infiltrations followed by other measures. Conflicts in Iran/Afghanistan are just illusions.
US military has lost its longest war ever.
Nope, the real war has not even begun yet, and it ain't against Afghans nor Iranis!
 
You withdraw once you've been defeated, like Vietnam, Afghanistan. You stay if you've won, like in Germany, Japan.

It maybe a bit too hard for you to swallow but the US military has lost its longest war ever. That's why there are no good options left for its politicians and they're looking for an armistice with the enemy. A mild, political way of bloodless surrender.
Every country would love to have the American military's record of 'losses' and that is no joke. :enjoy:
 
Back
Top Bottom