What's new

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

yeah, it would be a shame.

Just don't know why it is tho, when I was over there, the place is nice (mins all the shooting and bombing) and people are nice, I honestly don't know how this come down to this, but as you said, this shit have been drag on for many years, even before I was born, so I probably will never understand.

You have to live there, like I did many years ago, to understand what is beneath the facade that you describe. I agree with you that the place is nice, but the people have deep-seated grudges.
 
In short objective of US was and is to destabolize the countries ... murder millions and then leave them to keeping on killing each others

better you than us mate. that's survival instinct. I am not going to apologise for it.

If we are not doing that, then you come kill us, if you were me, what would you do? Go talk to the extremist and let's sing Kumbaya?

there's another principle of war at play here, other than 'better your country in the shit than mine if a war involving our countries might not be avoidable at some point on humanity's long time-line of inter-regional wars'...

the principles of :
- let's warn you properly and honestly enough first before we get ourselves into wars that involve entire nation(s).
- a war, IF unavoidable (as still happens too often on this planet in my opinion by the way, but that's just my wishes for peace speaking here), is still best kept confined to involve only a small geographical area at a time.
- the fact that we have other "fall-back principles of war" over here that are widely recognized in militaries around the world to simply be "the lesser of two evils".

please consider the following facts if you're an undecided reader about this conflict of opinions of people on this forum :
- we over here in the west do study Sun Tzu as much as what happened during all major wars throughout history (like the Greeks vs the Iranians back in the times of ancient Greece, as portrayed perhaps somewhat accurately (especially about the bottom line of that war and the reputed number of forces involved from each side) in the movies '300' (part 1 and 2 available so far, from Hollywood, in case you were wondering about that by the way) WW1&2, the Vietnam war, etc, etc, etc,
especially among those people over here in the West (and probably just as much in other nations on this world) who have to study these things voluntarily pretty much all throughout their lives, as part of their studies to be able to join and perform in the kind of jobs that are available in any nation's military, intel and government circles (the government circles that provide the orders for their own military and intel circles)..
- if you're doubting what a government's plans are, in my (semi-)well-educated opinion at least, you can not take even a single news paper headline as evidence often. you need multiple news-paper articles, publicized with at least months in between, from widely read public news-sources your potential audience(s) trust, to be able to even make such a claim about such policies being and likely to stay a government's views on matters of getting-their-nation into a war to fight, like this.
 
You have to live there, like I did many years ago, to understand what is beneath the facade that you describe. I agree with you that the place is nice, but the people have deep-seated grudges.

Well, I am barely hanging on in Australia, I won't last half a day back in one of those place, I am not 24 anymore...But yeah, that place is hostile.
 
Taking out the Iranian military is not the problem, but dealing with the aftermath is the issue.
We will leave whatever 'aftermath' for the region to deal with.

With the Iranian air force and navy decimated, Iran's leadership will use the army as an even more extension of state sponsored terrorism. Let the region deal with that.

its how usa like to keep it , but will Iran also want it to be limited to air and sea ?
If we refuse to meet on land, what can the Iranian land forces do, invade Iraq? Please do so.
 
Arabs conquered Iran and was not able to keep it under control. Doubt Americans can. Unless they nuke China Russia first.
 
fukk, we'd walk into Israel and evict these jokers. I'd like to see the US try to stop us!
Har...We would like to see YOU take that walk. You are nothing but the typical keyboard warrior.
 
We will leave whatever 'aftermath' for the region to deal with.

With the Iranian air force and navy decimated, Iran's leadership will use the army as an even more extension of state sponsored terrorism. Let the region deal with that.

As long as the fallout remains confined to the region, I am okay with that aftermath.

Well, I am barely hanging on in Australia, I won't last half a day back in one of those place, I am not 24 anymore...But yeah, that place is hostile.

And here I thought that while the people are nice, it is Australia itself that tries to kill you with all its dangerous creatures, while it is opposite in the ME. :D
 
We will leave whatever 'aftermath' for the region to deal with.
Will it just be the region that has to deal with it? Similar thinking led to the abandonment of Afghanistan after the Soviets left, we know what happened there in a power vacuum.

The withdrawal from Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam was arguably a lot more organized with a 'functioning' government comprised of the majority Shia left behind to run things, but even there the 'aftermath' in terms of the emergence of ISIS was significant, and its impact not limited to the region.
 
We will leave whatever 'aftermath' for the region to deal with.

With the Iranian air force and navy decimated, Iran's leadership will use the army as an even more extension of state sponsored terrorism. Let the region deal with that.


If we refuse to meet on land, what can the Iranian land forces do, invade Iraq? Please do so.

i suspect that if a war between Iran and NATO *does* happen,
which is far from even announced to be an officially recognized likely path into the future
(one that's currently only the opinions from individuals around the world who can voice their opinions and hopes and desires publicly on a forum like this) (we're currently all holding a discussion in this thread on this forum, that assumes it's unavoidable to avoid this war, but that's NOT yet announced officially in the public major news-papers, to be likely enough to happen in real life in the next 10 to 20 years, by *any* government around the world).

that's the headlines i've read so far.
and one of the things i do do nearly every day as a civilian with enough desire to prevent such wars as are displayed by the current opinions listed in this thread as (seemingly) unavoidable,
is to read enough major news papers' headlines (as well as some of the specialized news sources on the matters of future wars available to the world's public via the Internet) on a near-daily basis,
to want to see links to such articles *before* i start thinking from the perspective that the views of entire governments that such wars are considered "unavoidable" by a government and their intel and military leaders.
we'd
 
Arabs conquered Iran and was not able to keep it under control. Doubt Americans can. Unless they nuke China Russia first.

dude, since when did Arab conquer Iran?

Think you mistake the war between Persia and Ottoman, which Ottoman at most conquered Iraq and Most Ottoman empire is West of Turkey, not east.
 
better you than us mate. that's survival instinct. I am not going to apologise for it.

If we are not doing that, then you come kill us, if you were me, what would you do? Go talk to the extremist and let's sing Kumbaya?

No bro ... thats not survival instinct thats rule of jungle ... while claiming to be human rights champion but living like jungle ... its hypocrisy ...
 
Arabs conquered Iran and was not able to keep it under control. Doubt Americans can. Unless they nuke China Russia first.

The loss of Iran to Amerikan occupation would mean China is next. The same bodes true if Kim gives up his nukes. Next is China!

Don't betray your friends who are under attack from your enemies or you will be next.

You are not dealing with normal rational thinking people in the zionists, they are a mindless horde of babble. All they think about is there is someone out there to kill, who is different than them and they don't like, they have always been racist. Look at what they did to the native Americans and Palestinians. Don't for a minute think they won't do that to the Chinese. Haters will always hate. Warmongers will always be involved in some war.
 
Last edited:
we'd best made sure
we take out the entire iranian military capability
what we end up doing with Iran as NATO, like
we did with Saddam's army, except yes,
our demands and threats to enforce those demands
we need them to change.
Who is this "we" you are talking about? Netherlands is going to invade Iran?

Depends on what you mean by "Defeat" or "Winning"

In any war, there are always 2 objective goals

1.) Military Objective
2.) Political Objective.

In term of Military Objective, the US won almost all the engagement between US and Taliban. There are some lost but those are not affecting the overall military objective. And that is pushes Taliban out of Afghanistan.

In the 14 years US and ISAF troop were there, Taliban have 0 control in Afghanistan, their existence has been relegated from state government force, to insurgent.
Goal: remove Taliban from power.

Results: In 2008, the Taliban controlled 40% of Afghanistan. Today they control 70%. Previously, US refused to negotiate with or recognise Taliban. Today, they call for unconditional negotiations.

8-)

that would be like committing suicide because Iran is not on the side of Muslim and Communist countries.
In the event of a war against China and Pakistan, Iran would be the supply route for USA forces
Total sectarian BS.

Iran will never be supply route for USA forces against anyone, let alone China.

it is on the side of Jews and the West if they help it dominate Middle East and destroy Sunni-ism
Your Salafist British-created countries call all resistance to Israel "terrorist" (e.g. Hezbollah), make secret ties with Israel, normalise relations with Israel, destroy Syria for Israel, Netanyahu boasts about how great Israel's ties are with the Salafist puppet regimes (KSA/UAE/Egypt), but Iran is the one that is on the side of the Jews.

Quite impressive stupidity. 8-)
 
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/

If the Iranians actually want to fight the US, first they need a modern air force and sufficient air defence.
 
If the Iranians actually want to fight the US, first they need a modern air force and sufficient air defence.
I don't think anyone doubts the ability of the US to essentially steam roll any country in the world militarily (barring one or two exceptions).

In a conventional military conflict, the Iranians, or anyone else in the Middle East, stand no chance against the US. The question is what such a conventional military 'victory' would accomplish. Who would step into the power vacuum in Iran created after such a 'victory'? What would the regional impact be in terms of stability and the spread of terrorist organizations such as ISIS?

Regardless of Trump and Israel's ranting and raving against Iran, there is a relative status quo in the region that makes the possibility of a conventional military conflict initiated by Iran unlikely. So why disrupt that balance for no tangible gains?

Take Syria as an analogy - what has years of war and devastation accomplished? What specific tangible threat to regional stability did a pro-Iranian Assad pose?
 
Back
Top Bottom