# Iran War About to Begin



## Warrior102 (Mar 9, 2012)

Bring on the draft.....

Israel asks U.S. for arms that could aid Iran strike | Reuters


----------



## FuelRod (Mar 9, 2012)

> A front-page article in the Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv on Thursday said Obama had told Netanyahu Washington would supply Israel with upgraded military equipment in return for assurances there would be no attack on Iran in 2012.



My guess is by August the President will be begging Israel to attack Iran.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 9, 2012)

obama thinks that a war between Israel and Iran would ruin his reelection.  He's demanding it not happen.


----------



## Peach (Mar 9, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> obama thinks that a war between Israel and Iran would ruin his reelection.  He's demanding it not happen.


***************************************
Again true Katz. No way to stop it though.


----------



## BluePhantom (Mar 9, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> obama thinks that a war between Israel and Iran would ruin his reelection.  He's demanding it not happen.



Quite the contrary, it could put him over the top and he is demanding that it not happen because the timing is bad for him.  He wants to make sure that nothing happens until...oh...August or September.  Then:

If Obama is ahead in the polls nothing will happen until after the election. 

If he is slightly behind in the polls he will authorize an Israeli strike and then go on TV saying how we stand by Israel in their time of need, we stand against the evil Iranians, etc.  That will secure the Jewish vote (which right now seems to be in question) and gain support among some super-hawks due to a sense of patriotism.  

If he is moderately behind we will strike Iran ourselves to further enhance the above point.

If he is far behind we will invade because the United States almost *never *changes Presidents in a time of war if it can be avoided. Which of course begs the question: "_would Obama *really *invade Iran just to win the election?_"  IMO: "*fuck yes, without hesitation, or a lost wink of sleep.*"


So the issue right now is that Israel wants to get this done, Obama is desperately trying to get them to wait until it's to his political advantage, and they are saying "fuck you" as he has not exactly been their best friend in the world for the last four years, and they argue that a November strike may be too late.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 9, 2012)

No one's invading Iran. It would be an air/naval war.


----------



## BluePhantom (Mar 9, 2012)

Sallow said:


> No one's invading Iran. It would be an air/naval war.



It would certainly start that way, sure.  It might stay that way...it might not.  Just depends.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 9, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > No one's invading Iran. It would be an air/naval war.
> ...



You guys seem to forget..we've had this sort of fight with Iran before..

In any case..Obama's strategy seems to harken back to George HW Bush/Bill Clinton's way of using military might without troops on the ground.

Which is the way a technologically superior nation should fight third world cesspools.


----------



## Peach (Mar 9, 2012)

You guys seem to forget..we've had this sort of fight with Iran before..

In any case..Obama's strategy seems to harken back to George HW Bush/Bill Clinton's way of using military might without troops on the ground.

Which is the way a technologically superior nation should fight third world cesspools.
__________________

BEST OPTION. Now about Iraq & being reelected....................


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 9, 2012)

A ground war? Not likely.


----------



## Mr Natural (Mar 9, 2012)

How are we going to pay for this one?


----------



## OldUSAFSniper (Mar 9, 2012)

Sallow said:


> No one's invading Iran. It would be an air/naval war.



Definately agree with Sallow.  Look for about 250 Tomahawks to start out with, probably delivered by submarine and missle cruisers.  Probably looking to target anti-air, radar, and command and control first.  Then you can count on B-2's and F-117's to drop JDAM's and Bunker busters.

If the Iranians bring their navy back to the gulf, look for Harpoons to put them on the bottom as quickly as possible.  They have three? diesal powered submarines.  Also look for ASW to take them out in the first couple hours or they will cause headaches for the carriers.  

The first couple days will see an attempt by Iran to perform CAP, but Navy pilots will RULE the skies as always.  Not sure where the Iranian Air Force will go, but they won't want to consign themselves to certain death by climbing into the sky.  Hell, they might as well sit in the cockpit and put a gun in their mouths.

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that it's going to come to this.  Iran wants a showdown.


----------



## BluePhantom (Mar 9, 2012)

Sallow said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



I think the the likelihood is that it will be an air/naval war yes. But let me clarify what I am getting at.  It all depends on our stated goals and our stated goals will depend on Obama's polling.

If he is close then our stated goals will be "destroy Iran's nuclear facilities" and you will see a relatively short bombing campaign focused on a smaller number of specific targets.  If he is way behind then the chances increase that our stated goal will be something like "to cripple Iran's military capabilities".  Well now the door is opened for not just nuclear sites but any military target and that means a far more protracted campaign.

If the Iranian dissidents are smart they will launch another round of demonstrations right around that time.  If that happens then Obama has the ability to change our goal to "support the rebels in Iran in an effort to curtail abuses against humanity" and now we *really *have a protracted war which would almost certainly involve more than just air and naval power. 

Whether we have done it before or not is somewhat irrelevant.  Obama has a bad habit of ignoring history to begin with and frankly, and I personally don't think the man has *any *problems whatsoever rolling tanks into Iran if he thinks it will score him a November win.  That's my personal opinion.  I could be wrong.  Time will tell but the point is that Iran's treatment will directly depend on how Obama is polling....unless Israel says "fuck it" and does it anyhow.  

I think a ground campaign is highly unlikely, but I think that because I feel this election will be close and, while it would be in their best interests to do so, the Iranian dissidents will probably not rise up again...therefore the chances of a ground war are *very *slim.....but not completely eliminated.


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 9, 2012)

I wonder why the Conservatives are calculating the impact of a war with Iran in political terms and making it seem so slimy.  When Bush started, fucked up and continued his excellent adventure in Iraq, the Conservatives (always ready to send your kids to die in a war) pooh pooh'd the politicization of war.  But then the 2006 midterms happened and suddenly Rumsfeld was fired.

And still, the Conservatives failed to see any political effect of warfare.  But if it's Obama as C-N-C, the Conservatives always see politics...and nothing else.


----------



## del (Mar 9, 2012)

Mr Clean said:


> How are we going to pay for this one?



obamabucks


----------



## Sallow (Mar 9, 2012)

del said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > How are we going to pay for this one?
> ...


----------



## Sallow (Mar 9, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



Unlikely?

Try impossible. It's not going to happen. But you have a point with Iranian dissidents. Then you might..and I repeat might..see something like Libya.

But that really would be a geopolitical nightmare.


----------



## BluePhantom (Mar 9, 2012)

Nosmo King said:


> I wonder why the Conservatives are calculating the impact of a war with Iran in political terms and making it seem so slimy.  When Bush started, fucked up and continued his excellent adventure in Iraq, the Conservatives (always ready to send your kids to die in a war) pooh pooh'd the politicization of war.  But then the 2006 midterms happened and suddenly Rumsfeld was fired.
> 
> And still, the Conservatives failed to see any political effect of warfare.  But if it's Obama as C-N-C, the Conservatives always see politics...and nothing else.



You misunderstand.  I am fully in favor of bombing Iran's nuclear facilities into oblivion as most Republicans, I might even say most people in general, are. But to suggest that there is no political motivation behind Obama's timing is flat our ludicrous.

If Israel bombs today a) people will have forgotten about it by November so any positive benefits will be lost, b) Obama can be portrayed during the campaign as a war monger, c) Obama will lose support among the super-doves, d) Obama's resistance to bombing can be portrayed in such a way that he appears, or is completely exposed as, not supporting Israel and there goes the Jewish vote, or e) some combination of all of the above.

For Israel to say "fuck you" and bomb now is a political nightmare for Obama.  No, no, no...he wants to wait.  If he is ahead he won't authorize a strike because it will piss off the super-doves and he will lose votes.  In that case he will do it after the election, if he does it at all. 

If he is behind then he will need *emotionally patriotic voters* so he will want it fresh in their minds when they go fill out their ballot and that means _"wait until the election is closer"_ to do anything.

So that act of bombing is not the question or what is being looked at from a political perspective...*it's the timing and who does it that is pure politics*.


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 9, 2012)

Mr Clean said:


> How are we going to pay for this one?



True "43" put all of his war-spending into "emergency supplementals" (off-budget"  ) years after they were started.


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 9, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder why the Conservatives are calculating the impact of a war with Iran in political terms and making it seem so slimy.  When Bush started, fucked up and continued his excellent adventure in Iraq, the Conservatives (always ready to send your kids to die in a war) pooh pooh'd the politicization of war.  But then the 2006 midterms happened and suddenly Rumsfeld was fired.
> ...


But the only option you are considering is bombing Iran's nuclear facilities into oblivion.  No consideration at all for the colateral damage.  No consideration of how endless war and bombing paints the United States as an aggressor in the Middle East.

Are there options available that don't include these drastic situations?  Or am I right in thinking that most Republicans cannot think any further than the red phone and a call to arms?


----------



## BluePhantom (Mar 9, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Unlikely?
> 
> Try impossible. It's not going to happen. But you have a point with Iranian dissidents. Then you might..and I repeat might..see something like Libya.
> 
> But that really would be a geopolitical nightmare.



I have learned in my life that there are no absolutes and *nothing *is impossible...*especially when it has an impact on a politician's chances for re-election*.    Like I said...I think the "ground war scenario" is highly unlikely as it would require a precise combination of multiple events at the perfect time for it to come to pass.  Honestly, I don't see that happening...but....you never know.  Essentially, I would say that it's a 97% certainty that any military action will be restricted to air/naval, but a ground war is not quite "impossible".


----------



## KissMy (Mar 9, 2012)

Hopefully our new bunker buster will bring Iran to it's senses.


----------



## FuelRod (Mar 9, 2012)

Question, do you (anyone can answer) believe disabling the Iran nuclear threat will lower or increase oil prices?


----------



## BluePhantom (Mar 9, 2012)

Nosmo King said:


> But the only option you are considering is bombing Iran's nuclear facilities into oblivion.  No consideration at all for the colateral damage.  No consideration of how endless war and bombing paints the United States as an aggressor in the Middle East.



Sigh....most of the Middle East *wants *us to bomb Iran.  Remember, Iran is not an Arab nation.  They are Persian and while they may be fellow Muslims they are still considered an enemy.  The Arab nations are terrified at the prospect of Iranian military dominance in the region.  Now will they go on TV and publicly condemn United States military aggression?  Oh sure, absolutely.  But behind the scenes they are begging for it.  This is just the game of politics that gets played in the Middle east and everyone knows it.  As far as collateral damage...we will certainly try to minimize it but war sucks.  Iran can avoid it by allowing inspections, shutting down their nuclear weapons program, moving their military targets out of residential areas and using their own people as human shields, etc.



Nosmo King said:


> Are there options available that don't include these drastic situations?  Or am I right in thinking that most Republicans cannot think any further than the red phone and a call to arms?




Where the hell have you been?  We have tried inspections.  Iran refused to comply.  We have tried discussions.  Iran's not interested in talking.  We have tried sanctions.  Iran said "fuck you, we are proceeding".  We tried seizing their foreign assets. Iran said "fuck you, we are proceeding."  We have been trying to find another way for years and Iran is simply not willing to play ball.  A military option is about all that is left.


----------



## BluePhantom (Mar 9, 2012)

FuelRod said:


> Question, do you (anyone can answer) believe disabling the Iran nuclear threat will lower or increase oil prices?



Initially it will increase them, but ultimately it will lower them.  This is because bombing Iran will ultimately secure the petrodollar and re-establish our hegemony on the oil trade.  BTW...that's precisely why Iran wants a nuclear weapon.  If they have a nuke we cannot take any military action against them because they will retaliate by nuking Israel.  That means they will be free to do what they want economically and that means they will trade oil for currencies other than the United States dollar (which they have quietly started to do now but not very aggressively).  We can't have that.  If you think our economy sucks now, wait until oil is freely traded in Euros instead of dollars.  The economy we are in now will look like a bull market and boom times.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 10, 2012)

Sanctions aren't going to work and diplomacy isn't going to work.  Neither Iran nor anyone else in the world is stupid enough to believe what an American says.


----------



## SillyWabbit (Mar 10, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Sanctions aren't going to work and diplomacy isn't going to work.  Neither Iran nor anyone else in the world is stupid enough to believe what an American says.



This American says: there are things in this world that people aspire to achieve. One cannot help but run toward these goals. It's a fact the world round, that, without Americans, the world would be a lesser place. People believe, and they want to believe, what Americans say. Wherever they are, they believe. We wouldn't exist if they didn't believe.

That's just the way it is.


----------



## elvis (Mar 11, 2012)

Mr Clean said:


> How are we going to pay for this one?


Same way we'll pay for obamacare and the other wars.


----------



## ekrem (Mar 12, 2012)

OldUSAFSniper said:


> Definately agree with Sallow.  Look for about 250 Tomahawks to start out with, probably delivered by submarine and missle cruisers.  Probably looking to target anti-air, radar, and command and control first.  Then you can count on B-2's and F-117's to drop JDAM's and Bunker busters.
> 
> If the Iranians bring their navy back to the gulf, look for Harpoons to put them on the bottom as quickly as possible.  They have three? diesal powered submarines.  Also look for ASW to take them out in the first couple hours or they will cause headaches for the carriers.
> 
> ...



You should click "Pause Game".

In Iraq they were supposed to greet you with flowers, look how that kind of planning turned out to be.
Some people never learn.


----------



## ekrem (Mar 12, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> I think the the likelihood is that it will be an air/naval war yes. But let me clarify what I am getting at.  It all depends on our stated goals and our stated goals will depend on Obama's polling.
> 
> If he is close then our stated goals will be "destroy Iran's nuclear facilities" and you will see a relatively short bombing campaign focused on a smaller number of specific targets.  If he is way behind then the chances increase that our stated goal will be something like "to cripple Iran's military capabilities".  Well now the door is opened for not just nuclear sites but any military target and that means a far more protracted campaign.
> 
> ...





On which legal basis are you even attacking Iran ?
Where's the legitimation?

You can wish a contained air/naval operation as much as you want, Iran will destabilize the whole region.


----------



## ekrem (Mar 12, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Sanctions aren't going to work and diplomacy isn't going to work.  Neither Iran nor anyone else in the world is stupid enough to believe what an American says.



What did the members of your "Coalition of the willing" get in return ?
Georgia was bombed, rest ignored and Poland got squeezed between Germany and Russia.


----------



## Ropey (Mar 12, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IDjBiuHPqE]The Muslim War Council - YouTube[/ame]

War or Islamic Conflict Resolution?


----------



## rhodescholar (Mar 13, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> Bring on the draft.....
> 
> Israel asks U.S. for arms that could aid Iran strike | Reuters



Cannot get in there soon enough.  I just want the regime targeted, because if it is destroyed and a rational one takes over, the nuke program becomes less of an issue.


----------



## rhodescholar (Mar 13, 2012)

Mr Clean said:


> How are we going to pay for this one?



SA and other arabs have already offered to pay for it.


----------



## rhodescholar (Mar 13, 2012)

ekrem said:


> On which legal basis are you even attacking Iran ?
> Where's the legitimation?



Perhaps their violating FOUR UNSC resolutions demanding they cease enriching uranium, and the other UNSC resolutions requiring that they cease shipping weapons to terrorist groups, for starters, including Crimes Against Humanity and running one of the world's largest gulag and concentration camps.

Funny how far left posters like this mentally ill dimwit who screech about human rights and protecting freedom/democracy have no interest in doing so for the populace of any nation that is an enemy of the US.


----------



## Mr Natural (Mar 13, 2012)

rhodescholar said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > How are we going to pay for this one?
> ...



Well, then, if they offered to pay for it, why don't they just take care of the problem theselves and leave us out of it?


----------



## Urbanguerrilla (Mar 13, 2012)

Mr Clean said:


> How are we going to pay for this one?



The Chinese will lend the US a few trillion bucks...

"Where you go to bomb today unca sam, you a fun guy unca sam, you love boom-boom..."

The USA will soon be one big China town


----------



## eots (Mar 13, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVdtR_iN3_c&feature=g-all-lik&context=G2773fd0FAAAAAAAAAAA]Rick Santorum Can&#39;t Explain How Attacking Iran Is Part Of Just War Theory - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## KissMy (Mar 20, 2012)

Pentagon war game forecasts U.S. would be pulled into a new war if Israel strikes Iran



> "The apparent results of the war game reported by the Times suggest that it will be much more difficult than Israeli leaders assume to keep the United States out of the conflict," former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East Colin Kahl told Yahoo News by email. "In the retaliatory spasm following an Israeli strike, the odds that Iranian actions and miscalculations could drag the United States military are substantial."


----------



## KevinWestern (Mar 20, 2012)

rhodescholar said:


> Cannot get in there soon enough.  I just want the regime targeted, because if it is destroyed and a rational one takes over, the nuke program becomes less of an issue.



What makes you think a "rational" regime will take over?

I think a strike will:

-Delay the inevitable for about 2-3 years.

-Will push the Iranian nuclear weapons program even further underground.

-Potentially motivate the Iranians to ramp up their efforts, because if a country like Israel (with 550+ fully armed nuclear warheads, mind you) is capable of striking at will, then there's a greater case for Iran to build up its own defenses.
*
-Will likely escalate into a larger-scale ground war which could destabilize the region and will cost the United States a lot of lives and a lot of money. *

    *One scenario would be if ran, for instance, retaliates by filling the strait of Hormuz with mines. If these are to be cleared out, the US/Israel will have to take out all of the ground defenses that overlook the straight so that Iran does not attack when the mines are being dismantled. 

I don't want Iran to have nukes either, I just don't know if the pros of an attack are worth all of the cons I list above.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Mar 20, 2012)

KevinWestern said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> > Cannot get in there soon enough.  I just want the regime targeted, because if it is destroyed and a rational one takes over, the nuke program becomes less of an issue.
> ...



If a "strike" is done properly, and the sanctions are kept in place, it will likely end the Iranian nuclear weapons program.  Most of the estimates of the consequences of a strike against Iran's nuclear weapons and long range missile programs assume it will be a surgical strike* only *against these programs, but this would be irresponsible since, as you noted, Iran has threatened various forms of retaliation.  A high priority of any strike should be to take out as much as possible Iran's ability to project power beyond its borders by destroying its navy, missile launchers, etc.  as well as any research facilities that may be related to military applications.  Such preemptive actions will limit Iran's ability to retaliate.  

Iran's economy is already in the toilet with inflation running over 21% - some say as high as 50% - and its currency, the rial, having lost 75% of its value in the last few months.  Iran has been rushing to buy up huge amounts of basic items such as wheat before the sanctions make it close to impossible for Iran to buy or sell anything internationally.  Nearly all the items needed for its nuclear weapons and long range missile programs have been bought on the black market at premium prices over a period of years, and it is highly unlikely that as long as its economy remains on life support Iran will be able to make any substantial efforts to replace the billions of dollars of equipment that will be destroyed.

As for Israel's nukes, Iran has no more reason to fear them than it has to fear any other country's nukes unless Iran plans to try to nukes Israel.


----------



## kawserahmed (Apr 20, 2012)

You will see the war just this year. You can not stop it. It may lead to a world war (3rd world war). Israel and westerns does not want that Iran has occupied a nuclear weapon. There is no possibility to stop Iran without a war.


----------



## Unkotare (Apr 20, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Neither Iran nor anyone else in the world is stupid enough to believe what an American says.



Speak for yourself (and the current administration).


----------



## Mr. H. (Apr 27, 2012)

New US Stealth Fighters Now at Iran's Back Door - Yahoo! News

_America's most sophisticated stealth jet fighters have been quietly deployed to an allied base less than 200 miles from Iran's mainland, according to an industry report, but the Air Force adamantly denied the jets' presence is a threat to the Middle East nation.

Multiple stealth F-22 Raptors, which have never been combat-tested, are in hangars at the United Arab Emirates' Al Dafra Air Base, just a short hop over the Persian Gulf from Iran's southern border, the trade publication Aviation Week reported._


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 27, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > obama thinks that a war between Israel and Iran would ruin his reelection.  He's demanding it not happen.
> ...



Wow, I'm impressed.  How long have you been able to see the future?  Does everyone you know, know you're a psychotic?


----------



## JStone (Apr 27, 2012)

Mr. H. said:


> New US Stealth Fighters Now at Iran's Back Door - Yahoo! News
> 
> _America's most sophisticated stealth jet fighters have been quietly deployed to an allied base less than 200 miles from Iran's mainland, according to an industry report, but the Air Force adamantly denied the jets' presence is a threat to the Middle East nation.
> 
> Multiple stealth F-22 Raptors, which have never been combat-tested, are in hangars at the United Arab Emirates' Al Dafra Air Base, just a short hop over the Persian Gulf from Iran's southern border, the trade publication Aviation Week reported._



You get your news from yahoo?  Not surprising.


----------

