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

[VCheng]

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?

Syria is just a pawn that Saudis regard as an extension of Iranian influence close to home, which is why they went bonkers over Yemen which they regard as even closer. Their recent generosity to Pakistan is related to their fears that Iran would get nuclear weapons which they have vowed to counter. The list goes on.

 

[Persian Gulf 1906]

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

Are you capable of thinking for yourself or is your little brain limited to repeating the Saudi propaganda stance on issues?

 

[gambit]

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 harm is indirect. Unless Iran want to take over Afghanistan's place as a state sponsor of terrorism that specifically target the US, there is nothing Iran can do against US.

The indirect harm, which everyone knows but somehow is too afraid to admit it, is that Iran is waging a religious war in the region. It is a religio-political expansionist goal with Israel as first target.

Right now, the entire Muslim world would rather Iran be satisfied with the current geopolitical situation. With Afghanistan, there is a conservative strain of Islam that would rather the people living mentally in the 7th century. With Saudi Arabia, there is a petro state that is supposedly religious but grossly corrupt but is content with the status quo of itself in regard to the region and the rest of the world as a petro state. With Iraq, there is also a petro state that is busy recovering from a war that toppled a dictatorship.

What is the final goal of extending Iranian influence in the region? All these explanations about US imperialism is a smokescreen and everyone knows it. There is nothing in the ME that Americans want to import home, not even oil as the US is now the number one exporter of energy. The US have no designs on making any country a vassal state, despite the hyperbolic rantings of some on this forum. So what does Iran want regarding extending her influence in the ME?

Ignorance does not mean inaction. In fact, ignorance coupled with wariness increases the odds of actions and actions that are often negative.

 

[Jaanbaz]

When USA didn't exist............

This is Iran's backyard, Iran's neighbours have to sit down and sort it out, US has no business being in ME apart from causing more conflicts there.

 

[VCheng]

When USA didn't exist............

This is Iran's backyard, Iran's neighbours have to sit down and sort it out, US has no business being in ME apart from causing more conflicts there.

Unfortunately these days, in the here and now, USA does very much exist as a global superpower, so its presence must be contended with, like it or not.

 

[Jaanbaz]

Unfortunately these days, in the here and now, USA does exist very much exist as a global superpower, so its presence must be contended with, like it or not.

Historically speaking Iran has been around for thousands of year long before the Yankee's ancestors hopped on a boat and massacred the natives even then US has rights to secure its borders and neutralise hostile neighbours, didn't USA capture Mexican land and till holds large amount of it? So Iran has every right to take care of its surrounding region.

 

[VCheng]

Historically speaking Iran has been around for thousands of year long before the Yankee's ancestors hopped on a boat and massacred the natives even then US has rights to secure its borders and neutralise hostile neighbours, didn't USA capture Mexican land and till holds large amount of it? So Iran has every right to take care of its surrounding region.

Of course Iran has every right to do whatever serves its national interests, but then again so does every other country in the region, and including the global powers, to serve their own respective national interests as best as they can.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Unfortunately these days, in the here and now, USA does very much exist as a global superpower, so its presence must be contended with, like it or not.

Power? US can't even keep its government open. Paper tiger.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Power? US can't even keep its government open. Paper tiger.

Now that's i called pathetic narrow minded bias low troll @undertakerwwefan

 

[Avicenna]

The harm is indirect. Unless Iran want to take over Afghanistan's place as a state sponsor of terrorism that specifically target the US, there is nothing Iran can do against US.

The indirect harm, which everyone knows but somehow is too afraid to admit it, is that Iran is waging a religious war in the region. It is a religio-political expansionist goal with Israel as first target.

Right now, the entire Muslim world would rather Iran be satisfied with the current geopolitical situation. With Afghanistan, there is a conservative strain of Islam that would rather the people living mentally in the 7th century. With Saudi Arabia, there is a petro state that is supposedly religious but grossly corrupt but is content with the status quo of itself in regard to the region and the rest of the world as a petro state. With Iraq, there is also a petro state that is busy recovering from a war that toppled a dictatorship.

What is the final goal of extending Iranian influence in the region? All these explanations about US imperialism is a smokescreen and everyone knows it. There is nothing in the ME that Americans want to import home, not even oil as the US is now the number one exporter of energy. The US have no designs on making any country a vassal state, despite the hyperbolic rantings of some on this forum. So what does Iran want regarding extending her influence in the ME?

Ignorance does not mean inaction. In fact, ignorance coupled with wariness increases the odds of actions and actions that are often negative.

The reality is Iran garners a disproportinate amount of US attention not because of the inherent "threat" Iran poses to the US but rather the succesful lobbying by certain special interests to promote the security of certain nation states in the region.

 

[VCheng]

Power? US can't even keep its government open. Paper tiger.

Actually, it is a worthless paper tiger. Try it and see.

 

[PeaceGen]

Draw a line from Afghanistan to Eastern Ukraine through Syria. The US has successfully managed to hand over that entire region to Russia by proxy.



The American agenda isn't a stable Iran. They have zero interest in status quo. They don't want a mainstream Iran under the current regime anyway. Overall, the US wants a compliant Middle East.

Plus, they do not want Russia getting access to warm waters. So it's not as simple as just Israel's paranoia or oil. The idea behind CAATSA was to prevent the Middle East from getting closer to Russia as well.

what you mention is simply the transition from a uni-polar-ly secured world to a multi-polar-ly secured world.

please note that the US has 1200 bases or so outside their borders, and large and rich or rich-again China and Russia hardly any..

so what i predict is that they'll have to keep at least 100 miles or so between military bases that are not in alliances of countries, alliances that have existed for say at least 100 years or so.

consider it useful how *cultural* knowledge has been compatible-enough through-out not just 1 or 2, but 4 world-wars.
cold war being war 3,
and current war being number 4.
why this numbering? because they were quite different in how they were fought (technology used for fighting, men alive during those days, etc, etc, etc)

i'd like to introduce two other terms right here, which i treat as 100% synonym to keep it simple..
fog-of-the-future (FOF)
fog-of-the-multi-verse (FOMV).

Actually, it is a worthless paper tiger. Try it and see.

that's a statement equivalent (100% synonym) to one of them old Vietnamese pitfalls with spikes at the bottom.
except this one, for some at least, has 100% slippery walls, *at least* as high as whatever is to fall into it.
those walls are made primarily of emotions, among which i suspect for a lot of people in discussions such as these, would be : ambition, determination, stubbornness.

 

[VCheng]

ambition, determination, stubbornness.

These attributes apply only to one side or both?

 

[PeaceGen]

These attributes apply only to one side or both?

i think that if one side has them in sufficient quantity and intensity,
the other side has to has at least as much of the same sort of emotions available among it's troops and those supplying them, to be able to win at all.

 

[VCheng]

i think that if one side has them in sufficient quantity and intensity,
the other side has to has at least as much of the same sort of emotions available among it's troops and those supplying them, to be able to win at all.

Of course. To go back to your example, Vietnam and USA are pretty good trading partners now after that war. Isn't international geopolitics wonderful once one understands how it works.