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.


Why We Won’t Invade Iran.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:09 PM
reply to post by KilrathiLG

With respect, I think that you are underestimating the China and Russia ability to cover their internal matters. True, their is a large fire in Russia but not on the scale to disrupt a concerted military response to any provocative actions against an ally. With Russia's vast oil and gas reserves, imported stocks could easily replenish any loss to their wheat quota.

As for China, they are very much in the same position. The Three Gorges is not an accident waiting to happen. True, they are suffering from their worst flood in a decade but they consider themselves to be the one true, world Superpower and will protect that belief.

All that said, I still don't believe a 'hot' conflict is in the post. More likely a return to the 'great game' of the recent past.

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:33 PM
its been openly talked about as a target for war with china ill go look for the link how many of chinas missles would be or are in the immediate area that would be effected by flooding and how would that effect there ability to launch (where did u get the count of 10kmissles?) how many of there missles are capible of getting to the mainland usa and to the interoior

ps i liked the radiation post u did was very informative

back on topic im just hopeing this whole iran thing calms down but it seems with all the aggressive talk that some one some where is gonna screw up, two sites talking about there nucelar aresnal

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:36 PM
An invasion of Iran is out of the question and not in anyones best interest. Iran has large scale internal troubles. The loyalty of the people and the Army are in question thus the priority of money and weapons, always high, given to the revolutionary guard at the expence of the traditional military. The US and Europes best tactic at this point is to put pressure on Iran and let the internal troubles take its natural course leading to regime change. That will change if sufficient evidence comes to light that Iran has built or is about to deploy a nuclear weapon. At that point tremendous pressure will be placed on the US to act by Israel, Europe, the Arab States and others in the region.

This action if it happens will be limited to airstrikes on Irans nuclear faclities however, these may become larger if it is believed that Iran will launch missle strikes against the other states in the region. If that does appear to be the case the air strikes will include missle launch platforms, air defences, destruction of the Iranian Airforce, command and control hubs, Iranian Navy assets among others. Irans reponse to an attack on its nuke facilities would mosy likely depend on the reaction of the population.

If the strikes look to re-unite the people with the Gov in response then Iran will do nothing but use the attacks to repair its internal issues. However if the strikes appear to encourage the people to revolt at the perception of the regimes weakness then Iran could attempt to escalate the conflict so that targets in cities would now be hit and civilian casulties would result to shift the anger of the population from the regime to the US. Now where things could get interesting at this point is if the population remained determine to replace the regime with the support of the Army. At that point the US would have to decide if it would do more harm than good to support the rebellion with US air power.

I however do not expect things to go that far.

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:38 PM
reply to post by Extreme Pilgrim

yeah ill give you that.

i think i overstated chinas ecological problems more so then russia's

didnt a russian naval base burn the other day and they are useing a small but allbeit decent ammount of there military in fighting fires at the moment and with there grain shortage it seems that russia is haveing more problems then china at the moment

but your mostlikely and hopefully correct that its just gonna go back to the way of how it used to be yeah we will screw eachother over but not directly or through direct channels if that makes sense?

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:42 PM
I think there's a general perception both on and off ATS that this is a possibility because we're once again teetering on the edge of it. Every few years the noise level about it hits a high point and people assume that this is what it's leading up to-an invasion or attack.

It appears to be cyclical, and its been going on for many years now. This might make some tend to casually dismiss it and say, oh they do this all the time. However, just because it hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean it won't this time. All it takes is one false move on someone's part....

posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 12:52 PM
reply to post by ~Lucidity

Just to be clear my argument is not simply that i am casually dismissing any war because we have been claiming it for a few years now and nothing is yet to happen. The reasons i don’t think there is going to be any war are outlined in the OP.

posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 02:10 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Against an enemy that has a bigger army with better trained men and much better equipment, the advantage of rough terrain a lot of more money and they have a number of tricks up their sleeves called Hezbollah, Hamas and every Muslim willing to fight the Jihad by either reinforce Iranian battle power, terrorist attacks and so on.

Are you suggesting that the Iranian military is better trained and better equipped than the US or other coalition forces? I'd have to disagree with you on that completely. I've lost track on how many times I've had to tell someone this but to believe that US forces are either less trained or ill-equipped is ignorance of the military industrial complex's build-up since the end of WWII.

The land, sea, air and space superiority that the US has been building up in the ME since 2001 comprises of a blanket of intelligence spanning from Israel and out to the Afghan/Pakistani boarder. Any attack on the US or NATO's part is going to be solely sea, air or space based comprising of a Shock and Awe attack the would put the one from 2003 to shame.

Even if their troops are any good like you said they are, they haven't fought a real enemy since the Iran-Iraq War and since then they only had to deal with chasing Kurdish Rebels back over the Iraqi boarder. Even during that one war, the Iraqi Army can't be seen as any comparison to the modern day Marine who's been able to have nearly a decades worth of desert and mountainous combat experience and for the better part of it with the use of force restrictions more restrictive then that of an American LEO. Even if there are boots on the ground inside Iran they wouldn't be your average GI's but more likely Special Forces carrying out missions against high priority targets.

If anything, a war with Iran is going to very closely resemble the first Gulf War. We'll go in there, launch tactical strikes on pertinent targets only and end it with that. Any resistance made by the Iranians against US forces in a neighboring countries would only then warrant possible incursion into Iran proper.

I also can't wait to see what tricks those tricky Iranians have up their sleeves considering those said groups' contributions would be moot as they would have to deal with their power base targeted by Israeli air might. I believe that people are getting America's military prowess confused with how they are conducting themselves. Right now, there is no standing army we're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan but an insurgency where the lines between civilian and combatant are blurred. Now remember back in 2003 the US push to Baghdad? Several weeks coupled with nearly every "highly trained and experienced" Iraqi Republican Guard surrendering to any Marine troop they encountered and the War was won and the government crumbled. I certainly remember having a good laugh every morning watching the daily news video of the Iraqi Military guy (whose name escapes me at the moment) commenting on how well the Iraqi guard is holding back the American forces while we were rolling into Baghdad at the same time.

Now on to Russia and China's "possible" involvement in this theoretical conflict. The short ending is that there will be none from either both or just one, since both countries have not had the most buddy-buddy relations since forever regardless of their onetime political affiliations. They still don't see eye to eye on where exactly one's boarder ends and the other begins in Manchuria. The only reason any of them are in Iran is for the same reason the US is in the ME: resources! But they know that if Iran keeps deciding to run their mouths and angering the big pissed off American ego, then that will be their problem they'll have to work out on their own.
Russia is incapable now, just like they were during the Cold War to commit to any kind of military operation outside of their own boarders against another superpower's forces. But Iran is just the least of Russia's worries considering the internal problems oozing from them like an open sore. Aside from one of the worst fire seasons and the worst heat wave in a 1000 years, their domestic issues such as their broken police system with its blatant corruption, rampant racial violence against non-Russian ethnic groups, and terrorism on the home front committed by Chechen Rebels. And it doesn't end there when you take into consideration their international hurdles consisting of their struggling ability to keep a sphere of influence over their previous territories and a rising diplomatic conflict with Canada concerning how much of the Arctic Circle and it's waterways are theirs. I don't doubt that Russia can't handle it's own problems, but to come to the aid militarily of a country that's just been postulating and running it's mouth riling up western superpowers isn't in Russia's interest at all.

As for China, well it's said best with: Three Gorges Dam. There have already been reports concerning the structural integrity way before it's completion and be it from home grown terrorists or a US/NATO backed Black Ops, if China rears itself in anger toward the US or NATO allies, that dam IS coming down... But I don't think we'd have to worry about that at all for now. China's a country of business based on manufacturing goods (albeit of poorer quality). Their main consumer base is the American people. Now please tell me how China would take offensive action against the US when they know very well that in doing so would be terrible for business. It's not like China's going to lose any of its rights to Iran's resources if they were to be attacked, so there is no economical reason for them to make any moves against the US militarily.

In the event of a War with Iran, no matter how unlikely it will actually happen, they are going to find that in terms of assistance from world powers they are very alone. Sure they'll have their supporters of Venezuela and NK and maybe Cuba but all they will be are mice that roar and nothing more.

BTW to the OP, your avatar has always bugged the [snip] out of me every time I see it, no idea why.

[edit on 8/9/2010 by mistafaz]

posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 04:12 PM
reply to post by mistafaz

Are you suggesting that the Iranian military is better trained and better equipped than the US or other coalition forces?

Not really, no.

I was comparing them with the Iraqi forces.

I do appreciate the explanation tho.

I'm very much aware of America's military superiority. They would not get away with what they did and do if they were not.

I do not think Russia should be under estimated. There are still people there that would like to see things to return to when they were pulling a lot more strings, and I've heard they are willing to achieve this by all means, including massive Russian casualties and a few decades in a bunker.

China should also not be underestimated as it has the capability to simply go on long after there are no enemy forces left.

I don't think they will as they would also destroy their colonies abroad. Seriously... Chinese people are everywhere.

[edit on 8/9/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 04:16 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Got ya.

posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 12:02 PM
reply to post by mistafaz

Really well thought out response, i just have one little point to make. When talking about a China/Russian involvement, i don’t mean providing direct military support, I mean blocking UN resolutions, not allowing the presence of US forces in their countries (as with other SCO states) and preventing military planes using their airspace.

posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 01:37 PM
reply to post by kevinunknown

Ah yes, completely overlooked any Security Council involvement. My bad, thinking about UN resolutions and resolve through diplomatic channels have never been my cup of tea.

I agree that diplomacy is the only way to settle matters of this sort and would only see Russia and China giving the vote to an invasion or tactical strikes if they were given some form of claim to Iranian resources after the government is destabilized.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in