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

[gambit]

Is this my projection or projection of world biggest western financial institutes?

I have been here since '09. Must have been the same 'biggest world farcical institutes' who made those projections.

 

[Max]

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 ...

US need Northern alliance type proxies (kurd, Baloch, Arab, azeri militia's) supported by US air power, Mullah will run to the caves faster then Taliban.

A false flag like 9/11 can force whole region to oblige to US demand for support (either with us or against us).

At the end Proxies can grab power for sometime but it will be repeat of Afghanistan 2.0.

 

[randomradio]

Russia cancelled mass production of su-57 (for at least 10 years).

That's fine. The program is progressing as it was planned during its inception. They are just not inducting an older half-finished variant of the jet which they had initially planned on doing, instead are going for the fully finished product. The plan to induct this model was always between 2020-25, so the schedule is fine.

This will be in time when the sanctions will be lifted in 2020.

Iran has Tor, domestic version of Buk (Raad with many generations/versions) and s-300pmu2.

And Talash/Herz 9/Ya Zahra (domestic improved Crotale)/Mersad (domestic improved Hawk - and a mobile improved version Kamin-2)/Mesbah etc.

Building domestic Pantsir system. Domestic s-300 equivalent Bavar-373 has finished testing and announced next month.

Great. So all you need is the S-400, and of course, the jets.

Disagree. No one can hope to match US air power. Iran's best bet is asymmetric warfare and total self-sufficiency.

There is no such thing as fighting without an air force. With just 2 squadrons of jets, look at what Russia did in Syria. So imagine what the Americans can do.

Once hypersonic weapons come online, Iran's airfields will be targeted. Better to invest in S-500s to first protect the airfields holding 20 billion in merchandise.

In the mean time, stock up on long range cruise missiles and long range anti-ship missiles. And MRBMs, and nukes prevent wars.

Not sure if the S-500 will even be exported. And if it gets clearance, it's gonna be 2030 at least.

Yeah the US power worked great in the SyRaq?...........lol

Iran has thrown the US out of the northern ME, in case you haven't noticed.

US is not on the ground in enough numbers in Syria to bring any major change.

 

[The Accountant]

US need Northern alliance type proxies (kurd, Baloch, Arab, azeri militia's) supported by US air power, Mullah will run to the caves faster then Taliban.

A false flag like 9/11 can force whole region to oblige to US demand for support (either with us or against us).

At the end Proxies can grab power for sometime but it will be repeat of Afghanistan 2.0.

Agreed, if US want destruction of Iran or any country it is easy ,,,

US single CBG has more missiles and fire power than anti-air missiles of Iran ...

That is true for Pakistan as well ... However, in case of Pakistan US is afraid a nuclear retaliation ... Otherwise Pakistan is much more dangerous for US than Iran ...

 

[Arsalan 345]

actually united states don't want to attack iran.if they want,they will win.they have support of arab allies and iran simply can't stand a chance.united states don't want a conflict with iran.they don't want just because iran war will drag others in the conflict specially russia.

 

[Taskforce]

If US wants to be successful it will need allies within Iran to fight against the Farsi government. I hope Azeri in Iran don’t fall for American tricks.

 

[Max]

Iranians are not some barbaric tribal cavemen like the afghans they are more nationalistic

Nor Afghans, They are of same stock (without oil). Plus at least Afghan (tribal barbarian according to you) are resisting Mullah rule for quite sometime, while your civilized Iran is the only country who accepted cavemen rule..

Plus the so called patriotic Iranian have fought among themselves, First MKO, then PJAK Kurd insurgency, Baloch Blah Blah, i never heard about tribal separatism as far as Afghanistan is concerned.

While Afghan are fighting for 40 years among themselves declaring other extremists or foreign agents. lol

 

[Max]

I am not even Shia nor I am on Iran side but when did the so called afghans fought the mullah?!.They have been ruled by warlords tribal leaders and fanatics for centuries

From where you brought this shia thing? Afghan resisted Mullahism under soviet, then Northern alliance, then Afghans ousted Taliban with help of US and still fighting, on other hand Well leave it

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The Soviets wanted a vassal state. The US does not.

We left Afghanistan alone after the Soviets left. All Omar had to do was not get involved with Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. We were no 'bull in a china shop'. Afghanistan was hardly anything worthwhile for US. But now the region is clear on one thing, china shop or not, the US will bulldoze everything in our path when we put the will to task.

When we leave, the Taliban can have Afghanistan and the Muslims will cheer the usual 'graveyard of empires' nonsense. But behind closed doors, everyone knows that what happened was a lesson hard taught to the region. First it was Afghanistan, then it was Iraq, and we broke no sweat in both. We also learned our lesson, that from now on, it is futile to engage in nation building, especially in the ME. We will not leave the ME as we have interests there, but those who are hostile to US and are stateless will not find allies like Al-Qaeda did find with Afghanistan because of what we did to the Taliban. The next generation of the Taliban -- am willing to bet -- is not the same as the time of Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden. They will not be interested in spreading their version of Islam but content to rule Afghanistan.

Regarding IS, while it is a threat to states, the US and Europe would be the last on its list of targets, except maybe for the isolated incidences of terrorism, so what this means is that if IS continues to be a threat, it will be up to the regional powers to treat any state that sponsors IS the same way that the US treated Afghanistan. This also means we maybe looking at yrs of internal strife if not outright civil wars in the Muslim states.

But you still haven't answered my main question - what tangible harm does Iranian influence present to the US? What danger does the status quo represent, outside of Israeli paranoia?

 

[VCheng]

But you still haven't answered my main question - what tangible harm does Iranian influence present to the US? What danger does the status quo represent, outside of Israeli paranoia?

The status quo is just fine, it is just that Iran is trying to change it. The issue here is not Israel but Saudi Arabia and its allies that fear Iranian supremacy over them.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The status quo is just fine, it is just that Iran is trying to change it. The issue here is not Israel but Saudi Arabia and its allies that fear Iranian supremacy over them.

I don't see Iran trying to change it, most of their actions have been reactive:

1. Iraq: Increased Iranian influence in Iraq has been the result of the US invasion of Iraq
2. Syria: That was an attempt by anti-Iranian elements to change the status quo by overthrowing pro-Iranian Assad.
3. Yemen: My knowledge on this isn't as good, so correct me if you have information to the contrary, but Iran wasn't involved in initiating the civil war, though it did step in to support the Shia after the conflict had started.

 

[VCheng]

I don't see Iran trying to change it, most of their actions have been reactive:

1. Iraq: Increased Iranian influence in Iraq has been the result of the US invasion of Iraq
2. Syria: That was an attempt by anti-Iranian elements to change the status quo by overthrowing pro-Iranian Assad.
3. Yemen: My knowledge on this isn't as good, so correct me if you have information to the contrary, but Iran wasn't involved in initiating the civil war, though it did step in to support the Shia after the conflict had started.

We can trace such claims of reaction counter-reaction by both sides all the way back to the early days of Islam, but that will change the dynamics of the region today. Both sides claim innocence, and both are lying, equally.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

We can trace such claims of reaction counter-reaction by both sides all the way back to the early days of Islam, but that will change the dynamics of the region today. Both sides claim innocence, and both are lying, equally.

But I'm talking about recent history, where conflict in the region (Iraq, Syria, Yemen etc) has arguably not been initiated by Iran.

Hence my question - What is the tangible negative impact from to the US from allowing current 'Iranian influence' to continue? What was the tangible negative impact to the US had Assad been allowed to continue to rule Syria and Syria not been destroyed in the war?

 

[VCheng]

But I'm talking about recent history, where conflict in the region (Iraq, Syria, Yemen etc) has arguably not been initiated by Iran.

Hence my question - What is the tangible negative impact from to the US from allowing current 'Iranian influence' to continue? What was the tangible negative impact to the US had Assad been allowed to continue to rule Syria and Syria not been destroyed in the war?

The Saudis are asking for US support in preventing what they regard as unacceptable Iranian actions in the region.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The Saudis are asking for US support in preventing what they regard as unacceptable Iranian actions in the region.

They are, but Saudi (if not also Israeli) paranoia over Iran is what has led to devastation in Syria and Yemen, and to what end? Again, what possible tangible threat did a continuation of Assad's rule in Syria pose to the region?