It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Nomad451
Besides, on top of everything that is going on politically with this standoff, I am more than sure some people, somewhere within the echelons of power are PUSHING this conflict to come about, and would be doing everything within their power to to do so.
The United States is losing her grip on its reigns as the worlds superpower. Hasn't it always been said the best thing to pull a country, and even the world out of an economic depression is war?
Well if that's true, then BY GOD would TPTB want a war. Because I don't believe the world is simply in a depression, I believe we are on the verge of a totally catastrophic meltdown... We have reached a point in our civilizations development where we are literally facing a total collapse and break down.
Our worlds economy, technology, energy resources, ALL have en expiry date.
I believe we are fast approaching this expiry date and TPTB know it... They see a real potential for a game changing war, the middle-east war, and will be doing everything that can to ensure it comes about
[edit on 17-12-2009 by Nomad451]
[edit on 17-12-2009 by Nomad451]
Originally posted by Phlynx
Nobody wants war but the leaders of the countries. Why do we have to have war? It causes more trouble than it solves, and it is NEVER okay to end a human life by another humans hand.
This could turn out very bad.
Originally posted by Signals
The U.S. couldn't stop Israel if they wanted to.
Our lack of support with our current administration will force Israel's hand.
I really think it will be quick and surgical...sure, some scuds will get hurled into Israel but I just don't see a Middle East uprising against Israel, their military is just too powerful.
And if there is an uprising, God help us all because Israel WILL use nukes if they are backed into a corner...
Iran also has an advanced air defense system, deployed to protect its nuclear sites; "they are dispersed and underground making potential air strikes difficult and without any guarantees of success." (Jerusalem Post, 20 April 2005). It has upgraded its Shahab-3 missile, which can reach targets in Israel. Iran's armed forces have recently conducted high-profile military exercises in anticipation of a US led attack. Iran also possesses some 12 X-55 strategic cruise missiles, produced by the Ukraine. Iran's air defense systems is said to feature Russian SA-2, SA-5, SA-6 as well as shoulder-launched SA-7 missiles
United Arab Emirates
Palestinian territories Palestinee
NAM:Member states and representatives
* Antigua and Barbuda
* Burma (Myanmar)
* Burkina Faso
* Cape Verde
* Central African Republic
* Côte d'Ivoire
* Democratic Republic of the Congo
* Dominican Republic
* Equatorial Guinea
* North Korea
* Papua New Guinea
* Saint Lucia
* Saint Kitts and Nevis
* Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
* São Tomé and Príncipe
* Saudi Arabia
* Sierra Leone
* South Africa
* Sri Lanka
* Trinidad and Tobago
* United Arab Emirates
Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel's participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention an implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories.
Israel is a nuclear power with a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US cannot be excluded, particularly in view of the fact that tactical nuclear weapons have now been reclassified as a variant of the conventional bunker buster bombs and are authorized by the US Senate for use in conventional war theaters. ("they are harmless to civilians because the explosion is underground")
In this regard, Israel and the US rather than Iran constitute a nuclear threat.
The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and Georgia, where US troops are stationed.
An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America's overstretched military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war theaters. (The 150,000 US troops in Afghanistan are already fully engaged and could not be redeployed in the case of a war with Iran.)
Moreover, US military action on Iran not only threatens Russian and Chinese interests, which have geopolitical interests in the Caspian sea basin and which have bilateral agreements with Iran. It also backlashes on European oil interests in Iran and is likely to produce major divisions between Western allies, between the US and its European partners as well as within the European Union.
Through its participation in NATO, Europe, despite its reluctance, would be brought into the Iran operation. The participation of NATO largely hinges on a military cooperation agreement reached between NATO and Israel. This agreement would bind NATO to defend Israel against Syria and Iran. NATO would therefore support a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, and could take on a more active role if Iran were to retaliate following US-Israeli air strikes.
Needless to say, the war against Iran is part of a longer term US military agenda which seeks to militarize the entire Caspian sea basin, eventually leading to the destabilization and conquest of the Russian Federation.
The core problem is that any military action would, in practice, have to involve more than just a series of attacks on a small range of directly nuclear-related sites.Moreover, once such action started, it would be virtually impossible to maintain any relationship with Iran except one based on violence.
Apart from anything else, all the available evidence suggests that any military action would have a very powerful unifying effect within Iran, bringing a wide range of political and religious opinion behind the administration, increasing both its power base and its stability. Even the current administration could be expected to be a focus of support. Those elements of the theocracy that are at present suspicious of Mr Ahmadinejad and may still resent his unexpected electoral success, would not stand in the way of a united Iran faced with US military action.
A US military attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would be the start of a protracted military confrontation that would probably involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon as well as the United States and Iran, with the possibility of west Gulf states being involved as well. An attack by Israel, although initially on a smaller scale, would almost certainly escalate to involve the United States, and would also mark the start of a protracted conflict.
Although an attack by either state could seriously damage Iran’s nuclear development potential, numerous responses would be possible making a protracted and highly unstable conflict virtually certain. Moreover, Iran would be expected to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and engage in a nuclear weapons programme as rapidly as possible. This would lead to further military action against Iran, establishing a highly dangerous cycle of violence.
The termination of the Saddam Hussein regime was expected to bring about a free-market client state in Iraq. Instead it has produced a deeply unstable and costly conflict with no end in sight. That may not prevent a US or an Israeli attack on Iran even though it should be expected that the consequences would be substantially greater. What this analysis does conclude is that a military response to the current crisis in relations with Iran is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further – alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be.
Originally posted by DaddyBare
Iran never been anything but a loud mouth bully...
What if TPTB & Obama are secretly planning to unite Ahmadinejad & Netanyahu in a mind blowing sit down face-to-face historic peace iniative?? What if all this is PLANNED....so Obama can swoop in and "save the world" from disaster? (sort of like Carter/Egypt/Israel) Wouldn't everyone see him as The Savior then?
Originally posted by kwisatz
Why does it feel like the base point of WW3 has been chosen and is now just awaiting the right set of circumstances to make it a go ?
Originally posted by December_Rain
and these are the NAM member countries which includes the above given Arab League countries. They will most possibly not provide any kind of assistance to any attacks against Iran.
The NAM's relevance since the collapse of the Soviet Union has been questioned, with some commentators saying the organisation has outlived its usefulness.
With its diverse membership, consensus-building is no easy task in the NAM. Some members, including India and Pakistan, have been at loggerheads for years.
Originally posted by SLAYER69
What a bunch of Baloney
Ever since I first started reading ATS way before I ever joined. I've been seeing these DOOMSDAY threads about Israel attacking Iran.
Those of you who know me, understand that I'm not an Israel or Iranian FANBOY.
Didn't happen 4 years ago, didn't happen 3 or 2 years ago or even last year. It hasn't happened yet in 09. Now we are seeing massive "speculation years into the future We even have people siding up countries in this theoretical nonexistent event.
[edit on 18-12-2009 by SLAYER69]
Originally posted by heineken
i dont think you are keeping in mind what an attack on Iran should bring the world to.