It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Irans capability and reasoning...

page: 1
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Back when I started writing this blog, I warned that the idea of preventive war against Iran wasn't going to go away just because Barack Obama was president. The topic got another little burst of oxygen over the past few days, in response to what seems to have been an over-hyped memorandum from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and some remarks by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, following a speech at Columbia University. In particular, Mullen noted that military action against Iran could "go a long way" toward delaying Iran's acquisition of a weapons capability, though he also noted this could only be a "last resort" and made it clear it was not an option he favored.

One of the more remarkable features about the endless drumbeat of alarm about Iran is that it pays virtually no attention to Iran's actual capabilities, and rests on all sorts of worst case assumptions about Iranian behavior. Consider the following facts, most of them courtesy of the 2010 edition of The Military Balance, published annually by the prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies in London:

GDP: United States -- 13.8 trillion
Iran --$ 359 billion (U.S. GDP is roughly 38 times greater than Iran's)

Defense spending (2008):
U.S. -- $692 billion
Iran -- $9.6 billion (U.S. defense budget is over 70 times larger than Iran)

Military personnel:
U.S.--1,580,255 active; 864,547 reserves (very well trained)
Iran-- 525,000 active; 350,000 reserves (poorly trained)

Combat aircraft:
U.S. -- 4,090 (includes USAF, USN, USMC and reserves)
Iran -- 312 (serviceability questionable)

Main battle tanks:
U.S. -- 6,251 (Army + Marine Corps)
Iran -- 1,613 (serviceability questionable)

Navy:
U.S. -- 11 aircraft carriers, 99 principal surface combatants, 71 submarines, 160 patrol boats, plus large auxiliary fleet
Iran -- 6 principal surface combatants, 10 submarines, 146 patrol boats

Nuclear weapons:
U.S. -- 2,702 deployed, >6,000 in reserve
Iran -- Zero

One might add that Iran hasn't invaded anyone since the Islamic revolution, although it has supported a number of terrorist organizations and engaged in various forms of covert action. The United States has also backed terrorist groups and conducted covert ops during this same period, and attacked a number of other countries, including Panama, Grenada, Serbia, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq (twice), and Afghanistan.

By any objective measure, therefore, Iran isn't even on the same page with the United States in terms of latent power, deployed capabilities, or the willingness to use them. Indeed, Iran is significantly weaker than Israel, which has roughly the same toal of regular plus reserve military personnel and vastly superior training. Israel also has more numerous and modern armored and air capabilities and a sizeable nuclear weapons stockpile of its own. Iran has no powerful allies, scant power-projection capability, and little ideological appeal. Despite what some alarmists think, Iran is not the reincarnation of Nazi Germany and not about to unleash some new Holocaust against anyone.

The more one thinks about it, the odder our obsession with Iran appears. It's a pretty unloveable regime, to be sure, but given Iran's actual capabilities, why do U.S. leaders devote so much time and effort trying to corral support for more economic sanctions (which aren't going to work) or devising strategies to "contain" an Iran that shows no sign of being able to expand in any meaningful way? Even the danger that a future Iranian bomb might set off some sort of regional arms race seems exaggerated, according to an unpublished dissertation by Philipp Bleek of Georgetown University. Bleek's thesis examines the history of nuclear acquisition since 1945 and finds little evidence for so-called "reactive proliferation." If he's right, it suggests that Iran's neighbors might not follow suit even if Iran did "go nuclear" at some point in the future).

Obviously, simple bean counts like the one presented above do not tell you everything about the two countries, or the political challenges that Iran might pose to its neighbors. Iran has engaged in a number of actions that are cause for concern (such as its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon), and it has some capacity to influence events in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, as we have learned in both of these countries, objectively weaker adversaries can still mount serious counterinsurgency operations against a foreign occupier. And if attacked, Iran does have various retaliatory options that we would find unpleasant, such as attacking shipping in the Persian Gulf. So Iran's present weakness does not imply that the United States can go ahead and bomb it with impunity.

What it does mean is that we ought to keep this relatively minor "threat" in perspective, and not allow the usual threat-inflators to stampede us into another unnecessary war. My impression is that Admiral Mullen and SecDef Gates understand this. I hope I'm right. But I'm still puzzled as to why the Obama administration hasn't tried the one strategy that might actually get somewhere: take the threat of force off the table, tell Tehran that we are willing to talk seriously about the issues that bother them (as well as the items that bother us), and try to cut a deal whereby Iran ratifies and implements the NPT Additional Protocol and is then permitted to enrich uranium for legitimate purposes (but not to weapons-grade levels). It might not work, of course, but neither will our present course of action or the "last resort" that Mullen referred to last weekend.



[edit on 22-4-2010 by CanadianDream420]




posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 



I do not want to see any more deaths or killings, I've seen enough!
Iran, Most of the US forces he has mentioned have been tested.

I'll just say this.
PEACE!


[edit on 23-4-2010 by SLAYER69]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   
You had me until this



Iran has no powerful allies


Russia? China?

but then reeled me back in with this



take the threat of force off the table, tell Tehran that we are willing to talk seriously about the issues that bother them (as well as the items that bother us), and try to cut a deal whereby Iran ratifies and implements the NPT Additional Protocol and is then permitted to enrich uranium for legitimate purposes (but not to weapons-grade levels).


good thread
good info



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   
How do you know the Iranian army is so poorly trained?? How do you know they aren't well armed?


Seems to me like you are a bit biased in your assumptions. Seems to me like you think you know all about Iran when in reality all you did was look at the Wikipedia article.

More food for thought... If the Iranian army is so weak and unarmed, why hasn't Israel or the USA invaded them yet??? OH WAIT, it's because they're SCARED that they might not come out on top.

Iran is getting their new shipment of new-gen S-300s from Russia soon, and they produce their own older S-300s already, along with scuds and others. Iran becomes stronger and better prepared by the day.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   
You made a number of errors in your observation:-

1. Numbers alone does not determine the outcome of wars. The Roman Caesar knew it and never feared the barbarian hoardes, and won at every encounter despite his small but well trained and led forces. Similarly too today's generals.

If you still insist on backwardly believing that numbers means superiority, reflect back on 911. It took only a handful of guys who not only caused 3000 murders, it terrified and changed an entire world in one single moment.


2. Iran may have a small army compared to the world's legions, but it had shown willingness to use terrorism as a means to get what it wants - incalcation of fear without showing their hands. Not only is the Western World shakened, so too are some of the middle eastern states who only seek for peace.


3. No other nation has threatened any other country in these recent times except for Iran. No other nation has fervantly daily chanted 'death to Jews, death to Americans, Death to infidels ( meaning just about everyone else who is not of the Iranian sect of Islam), and back it up with aquisition of awesom Nukes in production.

Only a village idiot would not be alarm at the Iranian leadership's recent developements.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by VendettaBeretta
 


meh. israel vs. iran? my money would be on israel wiping them out. if iran goes nuclear, israel will probably attack.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   
this just in





The Iranian television report said naval, air and ground units from the Guard were participating in the three-day games codenamed "The Great Prophet." It said the war games will witness the commissioning of what it described as an "ultra-speed" vessel called "Ya Mahdi" and a total of 313 speedboats with the capability of firing rockets and missiles also would participate.


Link



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
take the threat of force off the table, tell Tehran that we are willing to talk seriously about the issues that bother them (as well as the items that bother us), and try to cut a deal


We shouldn't underestimate Iran. But I really don't think we should be rushing off to war with them either. If they could be persuaded to talk if we take the threat force off the table, I think we'd all be better off. Let them voice their concerns, we can voice ours, and come to an agreement both sides can live with. I highly doubt it will be easy, but it's definitely worth a shot. War should always be a last resort and not something rushed towards, and if there is any chance to prevent a war with Iran we should take it.

edit: spelling

[edit on 23-4-2010 by Jenna]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 01:10 AM
link   
At the risk of repeating a recently-sent U2U on this topic, I think its a long-term shame that we've had such a long and extensive breach with Iran. For the most part, Iranians are well-read, intelligent people with a long Persian (i.e., non-Islamist) cultural history who, for the most part, just want their iPods and Lattes like the rest of the world. They are not at all interested in dragging humanity back to the 15th century like some others in the region. True, there are hardliners in power, which is worrisome, but they do not generally enjoy the kind of populist support that characterizes leader-subject relations in other regional areas. In fact, most Iraninas grumble and make dark remarks about the clerical regime behind closed doors.

Yes, the US has some ugly history with their leader Mosaddeq back in the 50s, and the Shah later, but the fact of the matter is that if we used a little more tact, these people could easily prove staunch US allies. Instead we are driving them into the arms of the Russians and Chinese with our cartoonish rhetoric against them. Its a true squandered opportinity over many decades when we could have them as strong US friends in the area, like they used to be. We have missed the chance to engineer the balance of power even more in the US favor while also making the average Iranian more prosperous, open, and happy.

One very important thing to keep in mind: Iran is experiencing a big demographic bulge, followed quickly by a dropoff in fertility like Japan, Europe, etc. This will create big problems down the road. Two, they are running out of oil faster than other regional powers like the Saudis. If we push them to the wall (or the bearhug of Russia/the Dragon-ride of China), it will create BIG problems in a decade or two as they run out of wiggle room.



[edit on 4/23/10 by silent thunder]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   
First I would like to state, I certainly wish to see an end to the Wars in the Middle East.

However this is a potential part of the equation everyone might be missing here.

At the end of World War II, rather than ship back thousands upon thousands of military airplanes, tanks, and jeeps, we simply destroyed them in place.

We did the same at the end of Vietnam, destroying or leaving most of our equipment there.

A good portion of the equipment in the First Gulf War ended up in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait afterwards.

In part we do this to save on the petrol, and wear and tear on transport ships and aircraft.

In part we do this to help the Military Industrial Complex, by then buying new things, to ship from the United States in the event of the next conflict.

As the conflict in Iraq winds down, once again, they will be facing the decision of what to do with the equipment.

However, and this is the second big part of this equation, because the Middle East is in fact the source of most of our oil, it is the perfect place to run a huge mechanized military effort.

As well as to secure more oil, and yes Iran has oil!

So are Pentagon Planners, who are in the Business of War, and primarily War for Oil, simply considering, that with the equipment already largely in place in Iraq, and a close by unlimited supply of Oil, should we just keep running the War Machine on a new target, destroy the equipment as we often do, or give the equipment to the Iraqis, knowing that there is no guarantee that the current U.S. friendly Government in Iraq will stand indefinitely once we pull out, and we might then have to fight against our own equipment at a later date in time.

To us War is a horror, to some war is a necessary evil, but we should never forget, to some War is a Business!



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

At the end of World War II, rather than ship back thousands upon thousands of military airplanes, tanks, and jeeps, we simply destroyed them in place.

We did the same at the end of Vietnam, destroying or leaving most of our equipment there.

A good portion of the equipment in the First Gulf War ended up in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait afterwards.

In part we do this to save on the petrol, and wear and tear on transport ships and aircraft.



Wrong. We have treaties in place since after WWII that we must ship out all machinery. None can be left behind after a war.

I know cause my dad was working on the ships, bringing back. It's a pain in the ass but its our contractual obligation under international law.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


Awesome thread and very timely I must say.

I think we all know something very big is brewing up just now in the Middle East. When the Youtube video mentioned about Saudi Arabia switching to Euros instead of dollars, and that all other oil countries would follow suit, well that certainly made me raise my eyebrows.

Maybe a war is being manufactured across the whole middle East, and not just in Iran. Maybe this would be the only way to try and preserve the $ as the number 1 oil trading currency?

How many countries have been in the news the last week or two, and for the wrong reasons. I don't like this one bit.






posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by VendettaBeretta

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

At the end of World War II, rather than ship back thousands upon thousands of military airplanes, tanks, and jeeps, we simply destroyed them in place.

We did the same at the end of Vietnam, destroying or leaving most of our equipment there.

A good portion of the equipment in the First Gulf War ended up in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait afterwards.

In part we do this to save on the petrol, and wear and tear on transport ships and aircraft.



Wrong. We have treaties in place since after WWII that we must ship out all machinery. None can be left behind after a war.

I know cause my dad was working on the ships, bringing back. It's a pain in the ass but its our contractual obligation under international law.


As I said much of it was destroyed...in place, some of it was disposed of in the following manner...


Introduction
At the end of World War II, the U.S. government had tons of military equipment that it no longer needed. America shipped hundreds of excess armored vehicles, aircraft, naval vessels and infantry weapons to Europe and Asia, initiating its peacetime military aid program. Some of this surplus like C-47 transport planes and M-2 "half-tracks" transferred 40 years ago, to contain Soviet influence, is still used by many militaries in Latin America, Asia and Africa.

The end of the Cold War has again left the United States with much more equipment than it needs or can afford. While some excess weapons are destroyed or transferred to civilian agencies, most are given to foreign militaries through a variety of programs. Since 1990, the United States has transferred $7 billion of military equipment, including 3,900 heavy tanks and 500 ground attack jets, primarily to developing countries. Large quantities of surplus small arms and light weapons have also been exported.

Giving away excess weapons is often cheaper than destroying or storing them, and such transfers are seen as an easy way to curry diplomatic favor. Moreover, excess equipment is transferred in furtherance of U.S. policy goals, such as narcotics control, military cooperation or encouraging participation in multilateral peacekeeping operations.

However, surplus arms giveaways also raise several concerns, including issues of human rights, arms control, and fiscal responsibility. These concerns are compounded by the fact that many other countries also have large surplus arms holdings today. (The Federal Republic of Germany, for example, inherited the entire military of the German Democratic Republic.) In so much as U.S. policies may be used to justify similar actions by others, the impact of the cascade of surplus American arms deserves careful consideration.

This study examines exports of major military equipment and small arms declared excess by the U.S. Department of Defense from 1990 through 1995. It details the types and quantities of these weapons shipped from U.S. stocks, the recipients, the legal basis and decision-making process for surplus weapons exports, and the policy issues raised by these transfers. The bulk of this report comprises an appendix cataloguing all identifiable surplus arms transfers during 1990-1995, grouped primarily according to the type of military equipment transferred.



fas.org

The point is the cost effectiveness, of using weapons in place, to start a new war!



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Presuming the memo (recently leaked) written by Gates suggesting that the US has no effective strategy to deal with Iran, should it become nuclear, is true... and presuming there is conflict brewing between the White House and the Pentagon with regards to dealing diplomatically or militarily is also true... than it makes some sense that the rhetoric we are hearing about "all contingencies on the table" is true. Than factor in additional Regional players and what do you have? I suppose the question then becomes who will convince who of what and when (or) who will simply make a move on their own accord? The game of chess continues... Hopefully, there will be a diplomatic solution found, sooner rather than later. That needs to be the focus and the priority.


ETA:
reply to post by grantbeed
 

If diplomacy is not the focus (and/or the objective) than what you are suggest is quite plausible...



[edit on 23-4-2010 by LadySkadi]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   
I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I know the U.S. has hinted a military action against Iran but surely the American people wouldn't swallow that turd sandwich for a third time? What did "Dubya" say? Fool me once........well.....you can't fool me again. Will they attack regardless of public opinion or will a terrorist group believed to be based in Iran carry out an attack on the U.S. with remarkably convenient timing?

Surely the American people won't swallow THAT turd sandwich.......again.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by OZtracized
 


and this is exactly what makes me think there will be a Middle East war, with the U.S. fighting from behind the curtain so to speak.

turn them all against each other and maybe the U.S. will not have to be seen to be invading anyone.




posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by OZtracized
I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I know the U.S. has hinted a military action against Iran but surely the American people wouldn't swallow that turd sandwich for a third time? What did "Dubya" say? Fool me once........well.....you can't fool me again. Will they attack regardless of public opinion or will a terrorist group believed to be based in Iran carry out an attack on the U.S. with remarkably convenient timing?

Surely the American people won't swallow THAT turd sandwich.......again.


It just struck me today that a typical Freshman entering college this year would have been about nine years old when 9-11 happened. The whole thing must seem like ancient history to thise kids...and they can vote, too.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 





One of the more remarkable features about the endless drumbeat of alarm about Iran is that it pays virtually no attention to Iran's actual capabilities,


And you, CanadianDream420?

Forget that there is no comparison militarily between US and Iran in numbers. That comparison is mute.

The important point is the balance of power in the Mideast. And in that balance Iran is the major point that you overlook.

Why is Iran so powerful in the ME vs a vs Iraq? Because Iran is Shia and Iraq is mostly Shia and the Iraqi sympathize with Iran because of the religious connection. Iran has always maintained a large influence in Iraq and could and would exercise that influence whenever and wherever.

When and if Iran decides to destabilize Iraq it certainly has the power to do so!

All the US has to do is withdraw enough troops to the point that Iran can pounce in and win. The US withdrawal is scheduled for this summer according to Obama. The US will have 50,000 support troops in Iran after withdrawal. If Iran comes in and easily defeats them it is untenable!

Bottom line is that the Iraqi military cannot be relied on at this point to defend against an Iran destabilization and invasion. All the campaign rhetoric of Obama aside we are in deep dodo if Iran wants to come in and teach the US a lesson!

Iraqi forces are at best questionable at this point in being able to defend Iraq against Iran. Sunni's, Shia's Kurds, none of them reliably willing to give up their lives to defend Iraq. Well trained by the Americans? Of course, Americans are great trainers but dedication to the cause is the question!

The willi nilli Iraqi government at this point is the problem! Is the Iraq government able to lead and inspire?

Obama is willing to make the great leap that it can! However there is little reason to believe so...



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Great Post. It's too early for me to think of anything other than--Thank God we don't have Palin/McCain in the whitehouse:







Best,
Skunknuts



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Back to Iran, and all the questions about what the appropriate response would be in the event sanctions don't work, and Iran escalates its alleged nuclear weapons program? I, like many on here, would love to see a diplomatic agreement solve the problems for Israel, the US, and Iran. However, it seems the diplomacy blitz has reached a dead-end, and Iran continues to proceed without regard for their neighbor's concerns in the region? The regime is unstable, and that is not fear-mongering or rhetoric, but the honest truth of the matter. Just the tone and style of how the Iranian regime conducts itself on the international stage concerning Israel and the US should raise alarm bells in anyone's minds about their intentions for the Middle East and beyond.

Then, we have the regime knocking on the doors of some worthy adversaries like China and Russia as quasi-allies in the event the US and it's allies decide a military response to halt or stop Iran's alleged foray into nuclear proliferation is in order. I can assure you they are not knocking on China or Russia's door for a cup of sugar or a glass of milk. They are kowtowing with the likes of China and Russia for military assistance in the event Israel and the US respond through armed conflict. Iran has been able to do this by allowing Russia and China easier access to its vast energy resources and through lucrative arms sales with the Islamic Republic. With Iran making friendship with the two formidable forces above through business dealings and dialogue, a vested interest with the country and regime is established giving them some kind of insurance policy if they are attacked.

Even one nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran is one to many and will give them the strategic upper-hand to hold the Middle East hostage if their needs and wants remain unmet by the international community. One nuclear weapon is enough to eradicate an army in the field, navy at sea, or bring a city to a pile of ashes in mere seconds. If Iran has nothing to hide regarding the nature of their nuclear program, why have they not allowed UN inspectors into the country to examine their nuclear sites and documentation? They have not, because they do have something to hide. Moreover, I have not seen one inkling of goodwill by the Iranian regime to alleviate the concerns of the international community about the aims of their nuclear program.

All I have seen is defiance by the President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad. For example, the Iranian regime has shown time and time again what would appear as a gesture of goodwill, and then the international community gets their hopes up that an agreement is on the horizon, and then out of the blue the Iranians renege on the deal when the time comes for the rubber to meet the road. That alone is an act of buying time, and a stall tactic. What are they stalling for? Probably what many have been expecting? Not to ensure Tehran has adequate electricity or other attributes associated with nuclear power, but something sinister?

Now lets talk about the meddling in Iraq, and Iran's covert activities among the insurgent community in that country. The evidence of meddling is quite profound, because I have seen the news reports as many have. No telling how many US forces or Iraqi civilians have been killed by the assistance offered by the Iranian regime to insurgents, as a result of their destabilizing campaign? Some would say the US has blood on their hands for involvement in Iraq, but so does Iran. Then, we have the regime practically infiltrating the Iraqi government, political process, and unfairly bolstering the Shia majority over other ethnic and religious groups in Iraq. Which, again, is another destabilizing action. Moreover, I would not be surprised in the least, if Iran was involved in the culling that took place in 2006 with the Shia death squads. And even more nefarious, are the allegations of Iran playing both sides of the conflict with their support for Sunni insurgents as well as the Shia.



Further evidence of Iran's support of the Shia death squads and Sunni al Qaeda has emerged. At the end of December, two Iranian agents of the Qods force were arrested in a SCIRI compound in Baghdad. The Iraqi government was angry over the arrests, as the Iranians were part of a diplomatic delegation, and the agents were later released and deported.

But the Washington Post reported the two Iranian intelligence agents captured in Baghdad possessed "weapons lists, documents pertaining to shipments of weapons into Iraq, organizational charts, telephone records and maps, among other sensitive intelligence information... [and] information about importing modern, specially shaped explosive charges into Iraq." One was "the third-highest-ranking official of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' al-Qods Brigade."

The New York Sun described the documents as "the equivalent of Iran's Iraq Study Group" which "show how the Qods Force — the arm of Iran's revolutionary guard that supports Shiite Hezbollah, Sunni Hamas, and Shiite death squads — is working with individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar al-Sunna." "We found plans for attacks, phone numbers affiliated with Sunni bad guys, a lot of things that filled in the blanks on what these guys are up to," an intelligence official told the New York Sun.


www.longwarjournal.org...

Who knows how many thousands were killed as a result of that? I remember hearing about these horrors some years back and quite succinctly. Bodies were being dumped on the the streets of Baghdad with as much frequency or more than one would dump their trash.

Furthermore, lets talk about Iran's quasi-war with Israel that took place in 2006, and through its paramilitary arm Hezbollah in Lebanon. If memory serves, I remember the Iranian leadership relishing in the so called "bloody nose," their associates Hezbollah gave Israel as a result of the conflict. How do we know an order to abduct Israel soldiers and to attack was not given from Tehran and directly to Hezbollah? We may never know for certain, but if it did, I would not be surprised. They have a notoriously friendly disposition toward one another.



TEHRAN, Iran - The leaders of Iran and Syria said Tuesday that Hezbollah defeated Israel, with the Iranian president telling a cheering crowd that “God’s promises have come true” and the Syrian chief saying U.S. plans for reshaping the Middle East have been ruined.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

There is a war footing taking place among the leadership in Iran and it doesn't take a psychic or mystic to see just that. I would trust the Iranian regime to run the Middle East as a moderator and stabilizing force, as much as I would trust them to run a 7-11. They have not done one thing to alleviate the concerns I have with the regime and their nuclear program, and even more their regional partners and the international community.

So, is war on the horizon as many have been saying for the past seven to eight years? Perhaps, it may be closer than ever. I hope for the sake of the Middle East and the world, this matter can be resolved peacefully, but it seems unlikely, given the continued defiance by the Iranian regime to at least hear out the concerns of their neighbors and do something constructive to make them feel at ease about their nuclear intentions. I know one thing, and it makes me cringe; this war is going to be something the world has never seen since the Second World War. Too many major powers have so much at stake with this conflict, and as a result, things could get real messy as it escalates. It will practically go from a regional conflict to an international one over night. Hopefully, a diplomatic solution can resolve the issue, but I fear things are coming to a head quite rapidly.

Great thread OP and the US force projection is quite impressive compared to Iran, but they are but mere numbers on a piece of paper or monitor. Lets see how they stack up in conflict with the US seemingly stretched with forces spread to the four corners of the globe? It will be quite interesting and terrifying where this thing may end up, if the world leaders are not careful and cautious.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by Jakes51]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join