It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


War with Iran predictions

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 10:39 PM
What do you guys will happen to iran in the next year war with NATO coupe of well aimed missels at the heart of the nuclear facilities peace talks will overcome they will attack first either the USA or ISREAL?

and as a side question do you believe the USA can afford to go to war with another countrey
and do you believe FRANCE and GERMANY will be willing to help if conflict emerges?

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 12:04 AM
To answer your questoin, I think that nothing militarily will come of this. Its not that the US couldnt handle it. But Europe wont do a damn thing. And the US doesnt want another war. The only possibility I see military action coming to Iran is if one of the EU countries or Israel initiates the conflict. Then the US will follow to support her allies. Letting the an EU country or Israel lead would be a good diplomatic and political move. Strengthening alliances, thats how I see it

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 12:13 AM
I expect an airstrike and some infantry action aided by covert intelligence strikes to take out the plant, but you never know.... the Neocons consider Iraq an astonishing successe (they knew the insurgency would last, but all they wanted was a quick victory, capturing Saddam, and installing a puppet goverment held together by US troops).

[edit on 15-1-2006 by Nakash]

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 04:09 AM
You could argue that invading Iran might have made more strategic sense then to invade Iraq in 2003. Invading Iran would have cut off aid to the insurgents in afghanistan and would have given the US a foot hold in the Middle East. Instead US and allied forces are isolated in Iraq.

[edit on 15-1-2006 by xpert11]

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 04:19 AM
Can the US afford another War? Economicly i mean?
Wars dont come cheap either in treasure or lives and Iraq is burning money quicker than the US can throw at it.
I think there will be Airstikes and some covert hits by SF on installations that the bombers cant get at.
But if its gets the Iranians pissed they may retaliate by increacing arms and funding to insurgents in Iraq that would cause the US more problems there.
I dont think we will see a major land War in Iran unless its sanctioned by the UN and a multi national force goes in. But knowing how the UN works it will be a long time comming, i also dont see sanctions having that much affect. US has not traded with Iran for years and Iran dosent seem any worse for it.

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 04:42 AM
I see us getting involved when Isreal goes on by herself and does something stupid like an all out air strike. Of course this will have the full blessing of the U/S govt. and I fear that we will be sucked in through the actions of Isreal.

Also, there is another way we could get our hands dirty by a Irainian terriorst cell attack here on our land. I fear that will will happen before any air strikes are conducted. I could be wrong and I hope I am but it is not going to be an easy thing to take remembering 9/11. If we are hit inside our country by a terror strike watch how the elected will try to force public opinion that it was done by an Iranian cell.

I feel Bush is just standing there scratching his butt and just hoping that something will happen. That would give him the excuse to exercise all these new Exe. Powers which were put into the Pat. Act.

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 04:55 AM
Im not sure old GB is that keen about going to War with Iran, i think he may let the Isrealis do the dirty work for him, and God knows they are champing at the bit to do it. With Sharon out of the picture the new Isreali PM may use a strike on Iran as a boost to his authority at home.
GB knows that an all out War with Iran would be foolish in terms of lives lost and treasure. Iran is a different kettle of fish to Iraq, the terrain is different ( lots of mountains etc ) and not that well suited to armour and the size of the country is bigger as well, i dont know a great deal about the Millitary capabilities of the Iranians but i suspect they are better than Iraq was in terms of training etc.
I think you are right, there will be strikes by Isreal backed and supported by the US in Iraq, they will arrange for flyover rights so the Isrealis can get there and back by the shortest route. Back this up by strikes by US UCAV's and SF and this thing could be over pretty quickly, the unknown element would be Irans reponse.

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 06:32 AM
Europe wont do anything and so sooner or later the US will have to destroy the plants on their own. The US doesnt want and cant afford a prolonged war so they will wipe the nuclear plants out with an air strike using either B1's or B2's. Clean, precise, cheap, quick, efficient and relatively easy.

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 08:51 AM
They are going all out on TV, pushing this confrontation with Iraq. Even placing the old people from the Shah of Iran to push and prod.

Why doesn't Israel fight their own war for once.

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 09:54 AM

neither the Western Coalition, nor Israel, nor EU members states
can be directly involved in a forced destruction of Iran's Nuke development.

what can be managed-&-engineered is an escalation of hostilities with
Turkey's longstanding 'problem' with the 'Kurdistan Movement'

perhaps the militant Kurds will seperate a section of Turkey and Iran
and that violation of borders issue will escalate to where a Turkish-Persian conflict will emerge....
all the while, western-intell will be monitoring & even assisting the Persians
in creating their Atomic Devices...these nukes are of limited power and bulky enough to just be battlefield demolition devices...

The western alliances, having world opinion on their side because of the atomic demolitions by the Persian/Iran forces, is charged with the responsibility to take-out the clandestine weapons manufacturing plants -
which could, in the future, produce hydrogen bombs that are compact enough to be carried by missles....
different forcasters & futurists are saying that a regional war involving Iran is likely in 2007- -> i suspect that the western-world will desire & accept a
'Preemptive Strike' on Iran/Persia, by about 2007, as it will take that long for all the Kurdish & WMDs plots & ploys to develop.

of course there's a hundred other scenarios...the above model is just one.

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 11:59 AM
It would be easier to work with the Iranians rather than threaten them at every turn. The picture you receive from the media distorts thems.

When you push and push and push, how can you blame your victim when they buy a gun?

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 12:09 PM
We can't let Israel lose their thug status in the Middle East, if you don't have god on your side, you build nukes. Simple as that.

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 04:01 PM
Icomewithasword, what do you think the world has been trying to do. The only threats have been to Iran to the UNSC. Military action is just one option at disposal if deemed necessary. Its a two way street, if they dont want to bargain with the west then they wont plain and simple, they are just simply digging their own grave with their tongue. If they dont want their sites to get bombed, and if they dont believe the west can or will do it, they have another thing coming. I dont think they know it, but they just got into a biggest dick contest they cant win. Cooperation is all the west is asking, we would even assist them in their nuclear energy endeavours if they would allow it, but its obvious why they dont want UN or any other countries involvement, they want NUCLEAR WEAPONS plain and simple.

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 08:21 PM
I honestly believe Iran's president is a puppet. Nobody could be that stupid and confrontational. Nobody. A guy in a blog I usually read told me he was selected by Bilderberger, I'd love some evidence on this.

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 08:36 PM
I posted this thread with some links on whats going on lately which has been surprising

These links are worth reading

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 11:01 PM
If a military confrontation is unavoidable,.....then I could see the US being the initiating bulldozer. The US and allies wouldn't just jump in willy nilly without proper strategy of attack. If the attack comes, it would be geared up for and executed quickly. The US has some 130,000 troups in Iraq....however,....thats only a pinch of actual active troups in US military. I agree, Iran is more to handle than Iraq in terms of land size and military capabilities.
However, that doesn't matter much when you are talking about pin point strikes that can wound an enemy. The US is a Super Power, and along with many western allies it would maneuver its tools internationally to take ultimate advantage of Iran. Conventionally if the US gears up for it,......You would see simular results in Iran as we did see in Gulf war and In the recent war in Iraq. After that, we can all agree that holding the country would be the biggest challenge.


posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 10:27 AM
I have two predictions, one being the likely scenario, and one being what I believe to be the worst case scenario.

Likely scenario: Iran will resist accepting any deals, including Russia's offer to enrich uranium on its soil, until it feels it will gain more by complying than it will lose by doing so. The U.N. Security Council will, in time, pass a resolution demanding in no uncertain terms that Iran allow inspections, and that they halt further nuclear development, peaceful or otherwise. The resolution will imply the threat of sanctions, but will be worded such that Russia and China will either accept or abstain, but won't veto it. Iran will then strike a deal with the West, or Russia, averting further escalation. Iran will be allowed to develop peaceful nuclear power, or, if they are indeed seeking a weapon, the crisis will reappear after a year or two.

Worst case, highly improbable scenario: Iran will refuse to accept international demands, and the U.N. will vote down U.S. initiatives to apply stricter sanctions, due to rising oil costs. The U.S. will continue to push for this, but will make little progress. Seeing this, and feeling sufficiently threatened by Iran, Israel will launch unilateral air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran will undoubtedly retaliate. The U.S. will side with Israel, along (possibly) with other allies, but many will either stay on the sidelines or will instead opt to condemn Iran diplomatically via a U.N. resolution (which will, however, also call for a quick end to hostilities by both sides).

Another intifada will rip through Israel in support of Iran's plight, and tensions will mount between Lebanon and Israel until Lebanon enters the war as well. Syria will use the conflict to promote its influence inside Lebanon, but may stay out of the direct conflict. Major terror attacks may strike European countries who side with the Israeli alliance, and this will likely persuade them to enter the conflict as well. Saudi Arabia and Egypt will likely not be involved in the conflict, nor will Jordan. Iran or another player may attack neighbors who allow U.S. and other Western forces to use their facilities or air space.

Any remaining stability in Iraq will deteriorate rapidly as coalition forces are at least partially redeployed. This will likely be where NATO allies on the sidelines will take part in the conflict, via U.N. peace-keeping necessary to assist in Iraq's stabilization. The speed and effectiveness with which this occurs will determine how out of hand inter-factional disputes in Iraq and Afghanistan become as the U.S. presence diminishes slightly. If it isn't fast or effective enough, the possibility of Kurdish independence may be perceived by Turkey, who may enter the conflict as well.

China would probably not be caught dead fighting on the same side as the U.S. but will recognize that stability in the region is in their interest, and cannot be served by their entrance into the conflict which would trigger a war that would cost both sides dearly, just as they are on the verge of flourishing economically. As I said, however, they wouldn't be caught dead fighting in cooperation with the U.S., so Russia will represent a joint Chinese-Russian stance, offering limited logistical, intelligence, and possibly even limited military support to the U.S. and its allies, to ensure stability as soon as possible, and to avoid being viewed in a more adversarial light by the West.

Iran and any allies will be defeated, and rather than a U.S. or coalition occupation, peace-keeping forces under the flag of the U.N. or E.U. will remain in the region on a semi-permanent basis to sustain post-war stability. The global economy will gradually recover, and a much less liberal international structure will emerge, in which the U.S. and E.U. deal more directly in the affairs of other nations' political and military policies, particularly those of Israel and its neighbors.

Civil liberties throughout the Western world will be scaled back somewhat more than they already have been, as the threat of terrorism is greater than at any time in history. Our lives will experience greater intrusiveness on the part of our respective governments as a result. Nations that are thought to pose the kind of threats Iran and North Korea are thought to, will be dealt with much earlier and with greater consensus than they are presently. North Korea will probably be targeted for regime change within a decade following the Middle-Eastern war.

Russia will likely play both sides as much as possible, while China will firmly resist any attempt to alter its economic, political, or military growth. There will be a cold war with China, and Russia will play both sides until it becomes a hot war. The reason it will become a hot war will be because China's economy is too indispensable to the world to have been eroded despite being viewed as an adversary. Thus they will not implode economically as the Soviet Union did.

When they feel they have the capability to take Taiwan, or when we feel we have no choice but to pre-empt that capability, there will be open warfare. Russia will support China politically and perhaps in terms of resources and technology, but will do its best not to enter the war. When it becomes clear who the victor is most likely to be, Russia will side with them. So the war will either be, in its climax, the world vs. China, or the world vs. China and Russia.

There are no good predictive models, contrary to popular belief, for who would win a direct conflict between the West and China. It can be successfully argued that for every technological and intelligence advantage the West has, China has enough sheer manpower to counter it, and vice-versa.

Near defeat, the vanquished - whoever that is - will either surrender, or launch a nuclear strike. If the latter, the enemy will respond in kind, and the world as we know it will end. If the former, and the West is victorious, then with the Middle-East pacified (or at least under controlled), and U.S. and E.U. (and Russian, if Russia still exists) interests being essentially cooperative or identical in nature, and with China annihilated, a new global order will arise. If China is victorious, Europe and the U.S. will fall in power and influence in the world, and China will expand its sphere of influence in the Pacific, and a new but different order will rise.

Well, those are my predictions lol.

[edit on 18-1-2006 by AceWombat04]

[edit on 18-1-2006 by AceWombat04]

[edit on 18-1-2006 by AceWombat04]

posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 04:52 AM
What if china or north korea use this as a way of fianly becoming a super power after waiting in the wings for so long.

Mod Edit: How to quote –Please Review This Link
Removed quote of previous post

[edit on 21-1-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 04:55 AM
What if china or NorthKorea see a conflict with nuclear weapons as a way to finally bocome a super power conjoined with Russia and an arab state after all three have been waiting in the wings for so long

posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 03:51 PM
Thou can't predict anything.. We can only speculate. How many of us want another war? How many of us support any war that the us has engage in, because we felt that we are the Good guys and they are the Bad Guys? Why can't a country fuel nuclear weaponry? Is it because raghead countries can't be trusted with this type of weaponry? What is it about Iran. Ahh they have alreaDY captured your minds because u are so engrossed with it.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in