'Obama Prepares Total Destruction of Iran' - Update - Iran Says UN is a Pawn of the US

[Matt2]

Whaaa??? I missed that one. Have Western embassies been told to evac?? Whoopsie, this is looking more sinister.

Yep - we're removing our current Vatican & Iranian representation.
Though Gilmore says it's for financial reasons.
Though watch out, Sistine Chapel...

[musashi]

Whoa.
Yep, thou speakest true, we're closing our Iranian embassy as part of our cost-cutting strategy.
WTF?

[fluffybiscuits]

Perhaps the permutations and combinations of logistics in the War Games computer simulators of the DoD in America and Israel (or on the back of a knapkin) might throw up a scenario whereby it does actually see a limited intervention in Iran as one that could ignite a revolution, a la the Arab Spring.
After all Iran is Persian, not Arab, so a quick self-generated regime change (via an external spark) would not create a vacuum that pan-Arabism might try to fill. The regime is nominally democratic, but is patently a strict theocracy, and is seething under the surface with resentment at the oppression it is under. Under the right circumstances i.e. a crack in the dam of authority due to a pre-emtiveive strike on Iranian nuclear installations would result in an outflow of popular anti-government sentiment, leading to a popular democracy.
This of course is nonsense. Iran is a very proud nation, and an external threat will turn anti-government action into nationalistic pride. The worry is that this will spill over into an escalating series of counter-attacks. Maybe this is the calculation, and the plan. If it is, it is insane. If the calculation is that any military responses will fizzle out, this a huge gamble, because Ahmadinejad is on record as saying that he wants to see Israel wiped off the face of the Earth. Now, I know he does not have much power in the regime, 16th in ranking as far as I remember, but there may be a clamouring for war due to nationalistic fervour in the event of military strikes.
Will there be strikes on these installations? The scene seems to be set in many ways, such that it may be only a matter of time, notwithstanding the refusal of Iran to change tact in its nuclear ambitions. Brinkmanship between opposing powers is difficult enough to judge the outcomes of, but the hope is this is just posturing on the part of Israel for internal political reasons, which in time will de-escalate, and defuse the rhetoric- and the missiles.

Excellent analysis can I add!

If the US does decide to target the nuclear installations they risk turning the tide against them, it wouldnt be the first time the US miscalculated something along these lines. I do agree that while they are different in ethnicity they are still seen as fellow Muslims albeit a different sect. With a huge unemployed graduate population it could do one of two things. It could either a) radicalise them and make them want to fight against imperialism of the US or b) they could topple the theocracy that is in place. What would be the inidcations as to how the tide would turn if the US did attack?

[cdgalwegian]

. What would be the inidcations as to how the tide would turn if the US did attack?

I think that Morticia is right on the money (forgive the pun) with its resolution. But financial dire straits would hardly be a constraint for the present war-mongering attitudes, particularly when private ownership of ooil-fields is at stake. Any attack by Israel has the tacit backing of America- "Walk softly, but carry a big stick" said Churchill. I think things would "fizzle out" as Morticia said- I think most people probably think (and hope) this, but the stakes are so high this time, that escalation is has a higher probability of escalating this time.
Don't forget, the Lebanon's infrastructure has by coincidence(?) been taken care of already, so a rearguard action has already been dealt a blow. It's tough to call, but I don't think an attack will happen. Crazier things have happened though.

[antiestablishmentarian]

[quote=morticia;198012]

The US and UK are stony broke, though, and I'm quite clear that despite posturing, they're not going to want to wade into any more trillion dollar wars, especially when the Iranians have more oil per capita than the US does. I'm sure they'd love to invade Iran, in the same way that I'd like a bigger house. Can't afford it, so it ain't gonna happen.

I'm aware the US/Uk are stony broke, as you so nicely put it, but you must remember there are institutional politics at work as well- the military is an institution, and they could easily manufacture a threat to national security to maintain their share of the budgetary pie.

Israel, on the other hand, is another story altogether and they have a weakness to press home in the shape of the US elections next year. I'm sure Bibi Netanyahu has been having wet dreams about zorching Iran for 20-30 odd years. I'm still inclined to think that others will have issues bankrolling it. In the unlikely event that anything does happen, it's likely to be a one off strike on what Mossad thinks is the most advanced reactor site, which will be officially disowned by the US and its other allies. Israel will get a minor slap on the wrist, or not even.....

That would be a complete disaster for Israel, they are surrounded by Iranian allies like Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria. Even Sunni muslims would rally to the defence of Iran if it were attacked by the Israelis or America. Given their sheer disregard for the opinion of the US, their neighbours and international opinion in general, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they would attack Iran, and lest we forget there are credible reasons to believe Iran has a large stock of North Korean manufactured ballistic missiles which they could easily supply to their allies to strike Israel with.

[fluffybiscuits]

I think that Morticia is right on the money (forgive the pun) with its resolution. But financial dire straits would hardly be a constraint for the present war-mongering attitudes, particularly when private ownership of ooil-fields is at stake. Any attack by Israel has the tacit backing of America- "Walk softly, but carry a big stick" said Churchill. I think things would "fizzle out" as Morticia said- I think most people probably think (and hope) this, but the stakes are so high this time, that escalation is has a higher probability of escalating this time.
Don't forget, the Lebanon's infrastructure has by coincidence(?) been taken care of already, so a rearguard action has already been dealt a blow. It's tough to call, but I don't think an attack will happen. Crazier things have happened though.

Well there is a point which might be worth exploring. If they do attack Iran would they be looking to exploit the oil fields? The cover story of Iran and nuclear weapons is at most a vague possibility and Israel and US could be just itching to flex their military muscles.

[Sam Lord]

An attack on Iran would be one of the last nails in the coffin of capitalism. The Strait of Hormuz would be closed instantly by the Iranians and God only knows what the price of a barrel of oil would become. You could kiss any hope of economic recover goodbye.

The strait at its narrowest is 54 kilometres (34 mi) wide.[1] It is the only sea passage to the open ocean for large areas of the petroleum-exporting Persian Gulf. About 13 tankers carrying 15.5 million barrels (2,460,000 m3) of crude oil pass through the strait on an average day, making it one of the world's most strategically important choke points. This represents 33% of the world's seaborne oil shipments, and 17% of all world oil shipments in 2009.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz

[musashi]

Israel/US will not attack Iran.
They prefer non-nuclear empowered targets.

[fluffybiscuits]

Israel/US will not attack Iran.
They prefer non-nuclear empowered targets.

or places they think are nuclear but arent because of dodgy intelligence

[musashi]

or places they think are nuclear but arent because of dodgy intelligence

US of A, setting the standard in dodgy intel.

[Lapsedmethodist]

Never mind, there's a profit to be made out of this. We can buy shares in the Korean company that makes the little blue keys that the Iranians give to their children as they set them off to run through minefields to " clear " them . The key is, of course, the key to Paradise.

[musashi]

Never mind, there's a profit to be made out of this. We can buy shares in the Korean company that makes the little blue keys that the Iranians give to their children as they set them off to run through minefields to " clear " them . The key is, of course, the key to Paradise.

It's a win/win no-brainer, brilliant.

[Sam Lord]

Never mind, there's a profit to be made out of this. We can buy shares in the Korean company that makes the little blue keys that the Iranians give to their children as they set them off to run through minefields to " clear " them . The key is, of course, the key to Paradise.

While the Zionists think that God gave them Palestine.

A good dose of athiesm would go a long way in the region.

[Sam Lord]

Never mind, there's a profit to be made out of this. We can buy shares in the Korean company that makes the little blue keys that the Iranians give to their children as they set them off to run through minefields to " clear " them . The key is, of course, the key to Paradise.

In any case it seems that you are repeating a myth:

Iranian law prohibits the recruitment of those under 16, basing itself on the Koranic traditions about war. However, the state broke those rules by the middle of the Iran-Iraq War. However, as nationalism and anger to the Iraqi invasion spread, some children (along with old men) volunteered for the Basij militia, often from areas destroyed by the Iraqi invasion. All were volunteers, oftentimes more passionate about their cause than their adult counterparts, and were mostly over 13 years of age. In 1984, Iranian President Ali-Akbar Rafsanjani said, "all Iranians from 12 to 72 should volunteer for the Holy War." Some child soldiers even wore keys around their necks to signify their coming entrance into heaven. Ettelaat, an Iranian daily, reported, "Before entering the minefields, the children wrap themselves in blankets and they roll on the ground, so that their body parts stay together after the explosion of the mines and one can carry them to the graves." However, most (but not all) of those stories were really myths, propaganda, or embellished stories, and the child soldiers simply fought alongside their adult counterparts, often in Basij RPG or mine clearing teams. An small number of schoolchildren currently serve in the ranks of the Basij, an Iranian paramilitary force, according to CSUCS, generally above the age of 16. They have reported that the state conscripts for the regular army at age 19- while accepting volunteers at age 16- and those at 17 can work for the police.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children

I know that the USA supported the Iraq aggression that destroyed the communities these children came from. Did Israel as well?

[Iolo]

While the Zionists think that God gave them Palestine.

A good dose of athiesm would go a long way in the region.

A fair rew of them think the UN gave - and had the right to give - them someone else's Country. I find that belief even odder.