Iran has found its allies against the United States

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 12:40 AM
link   
It has become clearer to me as the days pass that the chances of the Russians or Chinese or both going to war with America over Iran has increased, and is actually quite likely. In the past when this question was posed by many people, I didn't really think these guys would become directly involved, instead I thought that they would just sell weapons and be politically supportive, but now I see in their actions and based on what I've read that this might not be the case.

China for one wants closer ties to that government, even at this moment of crisis. As for Russia and the United States their both on totally different pages with Russia saying that Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear tech and America saying no. These are not just words but battle lines seem to be being drawn. I remember back in 2003 after the US defeated Iraq the Russians specifically told the US not to go to war against anymore mid-east regimes. The Russians are the ones who opposed severe sanctions against Syria, Putin made and unannouced visit to Israel, and Russia now wants to build a naval port in Syria. This war has become one between the powers now.

I'll admit I didn't just think this idea up by myself. Besides reading these news stories, I read an political analysis on the Centre for Research on Globalization which stated that the Russians and Chinese had already taken various positions with certain military forces in Central Asia. I wouldn't be surprised, because ever since August 2005 there have been calls for the United States to remove its bases from there with the Uzbek leader stating at one point that they had 180 days to do it. But it doesn't end there. It would seem that India may become involved against Pakistan. There was some article about them preparing their military to attack just in case an Islamic leader takes over in the event of chaos.

I believe that Russia and China would strike only in Central Asia, not only to kick America out but to send a warning that would stop a nuclear attack on Iran. Because if Russia and China are fighting you also then nuclear retaliation becomes very real. But whatever happens, it's clear that there is a chance for a huge war in Asia.




posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeoQuest
As for Russia and the United States their both on totally different pages with Russia saying that Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear tech and America saying no.


The US has said no such thing, the US never said Iran couldn't have nuclear energy and infact Russia and the US are on the same page concerning this issue. Russia offered to in enrich uranium for fuel for Iran and the US was onboard with that but Iran shot it down.

As for "China for one wants closer ties to that government" not as bad as it wants to keep its lucrative ties to the US its biggest trading partner. The money that goes between China and the US dwarfes any deal it will ever have with Iran.

Neither Russia or China is going to risk open war and possible nuclear war with the US over Iran. China and Russia are looking out for China and Russia. They will sell Iran all the weapons it can buy though. They will use Iran for oil and to make money selling weapons, But they aint getting into a direct war with a super power over Iran.


[edit on 17-6-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   
There are many players power brokering on the Iran standoff.

China does not support Iranian style theocracy, and will try to support Ahmadinejad to break the clergy that he must rely on today, despite his outlandish comments on the holocaust. It will probaly enlist the help of General Musharref. This will, in time, enable all six parties to the proposed Iranian nuclear package to live with a non-uranium-enriching nuclear Iran.

In the meantime China will turn a blind eye on U.S. and S. Korea attempts to bring down Kim Jung-Il, in exchange for a liberty to create a favourable political climate for annexing Taiwan. Russia also has a stake in this oucome, but I am not at liberty to go into that.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   
I believe Russia and China both view with great and growing concern the increasing American military adventurism to their immediate south.

How would America view a Russian surgical air attack of Canada using tactical nukes ? Or a Chinese occupation army in Mexico carrying out war atrocities like those in Falluja ?

If America stays in Iraq, or builds large permanent bases there, or attacks Iran, expect the big guys to the north to get pissed off mightily. They may just decide to do something fairly decisive.

A worn down and depleted American military that cannot even defeat lightly armed irregular civilian armies in Afghanistan or Iraq, will not fair too well against a fresh modern army of vastly greater size and capability.

Along with economic ruin, it could be the end of America militarily.

Remember America has been starting and losing wars for sixty years. It has not won a single war anywhere except in Granada in all that time. It has constantly been defeated, even though it has never faced a real properly equipped modern army of much larger size.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 02:23 AM
link   
USA did invade Panama too


Back to topic:
Russia will not defend Iran. It will sell Iran all the weapons Iran can buy, mainly to get the new toys field tested against US in order to get information on what needs to be done. But they will not intervene directly. FSB might provide Iran with limited intel (again on the basis of testing US true strength) but it will be 100% sure they won't get caught doing it. Russia has nothing to gain from iran exept income from weapons sale. Russia does not need Iranian oil at the moment.

As for china, Shadow is correct that China cannot endanger its trading relations with US for a few decades. And you have to remember Chinese have been buying Lots of shares from US oil comppanies and they want to protect their investments (which they may very well later on use to collapse US economy, but that's an other story)

Only allies Iran may get is Syria, unless Israel is the attacker. In that case, Egypt, Jordan and other Muslim countries may come to their rescue (US will not directly defend Israel, in order to avoid conflict with majority of oil producers)



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 05:22 AM
link   
I have to agree..i think Iran will be lucky to find any allies in the case of US military action v Iran.I think any US action will only be at the end of doing as much as possible politically with Iran/Russia/China to come out with a solution to the problem.As Northwolf has pointed out there is no major interests of Russia and China in Iran bar whatever mileage may arise from US problems in this area along with Iraq.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   
As Warpspeed posted America is losing wars it started?

North Korea invaded South Korea. How did the USA start this? At least millions of South Koreans have a good life right now, because the USA had the balls to intervene. The US fought a limited war and did not go over th Yalu river. Political constraints held back the US military. China had "Volunteers" entering North Korea to attack the White devil invaders.

Vietnam was a French colony. Vietnam was sick of foreign troops. France, then Japan in WWII, the France, and then the US in South Vietnam. The USA incorrectly saw it as a cold war issue. The North Vietnamese saw it as an independence issue for North & South Vietnam. Russia & China gladly gave weapons to the NVA. Should we have gone.....probably not. I think if Kennedy lived he would have left in the early 1960's. But you have to remember South Vietnam was a recognized country by the UN, and North Vietnamese troops were there fighting on South Vietnamese land. That is an Invasion from North Vietnam.


Sure the US is not perfect, but look at your own country.

Since World War II Australia was in Korea, Malaya, Boreno, Vietnam, East Timor, Gulf War, War on Terror, Iraq, and the Solomon Islands.

I hope Iran does not want Australia's depleted, outdated, low IQ military as an ally. The Australian army could barely beat a lightly armed irregular army of aborigines.

Then if New Zealand put some tatical nukes on your border how would that make you feel?

Or a Chinese occupation of Queensland.

That would be the end of Australia militarily and economically.

__________________________________________________--
In my opinion what I wrote about Australia is slanted and I was being a jerk. You had a few points in your post. But it was mostly hate of the United States. So I just wanted to point out that Australia hasn't won a war either. If the Unitd States military is broken, then Australia's is already in the trash bag. Iran would be a perfect Ally to Australia I feel.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I think the only reason you would have to worry about China being directly involved, is if there is a breakdown concerning the China/Taiwan scenario and we get ourselves involved in that arena.

NYTimes


Q&A: The dispute between China and Taiwan
Published: November 22, 2005

From the Council on Foreign Relations, November 22, 2005

What is the state of China-Taiwan relations?

President George Bush fanned the flames of the longstanding conflict between China and Taiwan during his November 16 speech in Kyoto, at the start of a week-long state visit to Asia. In urging China to expand openness and allow its people more freedoms, the president used Taiwan as a model, saying Taiwan had brought prosperity to its people by embracing freedom and creating a democratic Chinese society. China rejected Bush's comments. "Taiwan is an inseparable part ofChina, and China does not brook any interference in its internal affairs," Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing told reporters at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in South Korea. Bush meets Chinese President Hu Jintao and other Asian leaders at the summit November 19.

What is the history of the conflict?

Taiwan, an island of 23 million off China's southern coast, was occupied by Japan for fifty years, from 1895 to 1945. In 1949, after Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist Party lost its power struggle with the Communist Party in China, Chiang and his followers fled to Taiwan. Their Kuomintang (KMT) government-in-exile in Taipei defined itself as the alternative to Communist rule and hoped one day to return to power in Beijing. The KMT governed Taiwan from 1949 to 2000; its often harsh rule included discriminatory laws against ethnic Taiwanese and nearly forty years of martial law, which was finally lifted in 1987. The KMT has historically seen Taiwan as a part of "one China" that would eventually be reunited under Nationalist rule.

Taiwan's current ruling party, the predominantly ethnic Taiwanese Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was founded in 1986 to counter the KMT, and only became legal in 1989 after a longtime ban on opposition parties was dropped. Taiwanese President Chen Shui-Bian is a member of the DPP, which envisions Taiwan as an independent nation, separate from China. In 2000, Chen was the first DPP candidate to be elected president. Taiwanese sovereignty is the first and most prominent issue on the party's platform. This position has put the DPP severely at odds with China's leadership, which views Taiwan as a renegade province that will one day be reunited with Communist China--by force, if necessary.

What is the U.S. position?

The United States officially recognizes only one China --including Taiwan --and urges a peaceful resolution to the Taiwan question. However, Washington is also bound by the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act to aid in Taiwan 's defense, including selling the island the weapons it needs to defend itself against China . Experts say the United States is walking a fine line between China 's growing influence and the historical U.S. relationship with Taiwan . "Bush had to stand up for freedom and democracy and all the other values he constantly talks about, without picking a fight with China that nobody really wants," says David Kang, an Asia expert and visiting professor at Stanford University. Bush stressed in his speech that "there should be no unilateral attempts to change the status quo by either side."

Read the full story here


I think if theres a rational concern about China, this would be a more valid concern

Of course China has a vested Oil and Gas deal with Iran , but that will not get them directly involved. Especially since the US will make it a point to try to keep any disruption of Chinas energy flow to an extreme minimum.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Russia relations with Iran are actually on the breaking point. On several occasions the Iranians misinformed Russians about their progress in uranium enrichment and similar matters, even though Russia is supposed to be a hypothetical ally. Now Russia does not trust Iran nearly enough to be any sort of a military ally. However Putin still does not want US to increase its military presence in the Middle East anymore that it already has.

Russia is cautious of American quick expansion after 9/11. First Afganistan, then iraq, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Azerbaidjan and a few other states in central Asia. Obviously Russia sees this positioning around its borders as a threat, and is also looking to prevent US from gaining anymore influence in the region.

However if Iran is attacked, Russia will not risk helping it beyond selling weapons and giving limited intel, much like it did with Iraq. When US attacked Serbia and Iraq, Russia did not intervene even though those attacks were against their interests. Similarly it will do nothing in Iran. Putin is far more concerned with economy than military shuffle with the US. US seems to have enough problems without Russia in its wars.



About China- it currently needs to ensure as much energy resources as possible. It is one of a few issues currently holding China from growing even faster. Mostly of Middle Eastern oil exporters are tied up with US and EU and China cannot gain enough influence there. Iran is the last nation there that China could possibly get as an economic ally. Although it is very much against China's interests to lose Iran, it will not risk open conflict with US for at least 2 more decades.

But chances are even if US attacks Iran, it will not occupy it. Iran is far larger than Iraq and has higher population. Only military action US might take is bombing, but not an invasion. If US does invade, China and Russia would simply sit back and enjoy their potential enemy's military and economic might disintegrate in the greatest quagmire the world has ever seen.

[edit on 20-6-2006 by maloy]



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Another member, Muaddib, has started a thread with a very interesting story that I think validates(at least to a degree) NeoQuest's original concerns. The link is below:

Iran to Join Other Nations in Alliance Against The West.

it would seem I have missed a group called the Shangai Co-operation Organization.
Maybe there is more to this after all.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Warpspeed

A worn down and depleted American military that cannot even defeat lightly armed irregular civilian armies in Afghanistan or Iraq, will not fair too well against a fresh modern army of vastly greater size and capability.



Are you kidding? Fighting large military forces is the US militaries bread and butter and they have proven more then capable of doing such. Really the US has by far the most real battle experience of any of the global powers right now. When was the last time Russia or China fought a real war with a organized army?


Thats what militaries are created to do not be a police force. Whats going on in Iraq and Afghanistan now is really police work and can be much harder then fighting a war because it brings to the table problems that B-2s bombers, Tomahawk missiles and other high ticket items that are great against modern armies have little use. Look what happened to the Soviet union in Afghanistan while trying to do the same task, such work isnt easy for any military super power or not.

Most people in the US military would likely prefer to be fighting a modern army of vastly greater size and capability and little to no real battle experience instead of being police in Iraq.





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join