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.


How do you think a war with Iran will unfold?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 12:58 PM
Israel will attack Iran, then Iran, Egypt and Syria will attack Israel, pushing them out of the middle east.

The US might have it's hands tied due to a nuclear strike against it from either China, Russia, or Iranian nuclear terrorism....

I don't think we (the US) will be as involved as everyone thinks.
We will be having our own battles much closer to home.

Just my thoughts.

posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 04:49 PM
as we speak us troops are delaying to israel their are over 10000 troops there since januasry 2012 and they are setting up is slew defense system high altitude ones with israel.

whats going to happen in march or even earlier-us and israel are going to nuke their nuclear sites with the help of saudi arabia kuwait and england.

then the iranian people will overthrow their crazy government like they wanted to 2 years ago.

and then we can worry about something else

posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:17 PM
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

I am not taking the time to explain it to you. Move along and continue with other posters.

posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:22 PM
Here's a potential outcome for the current hostilities that are boiling globally. I think, as you will see in the outline, that the middle east is merely the excuse for the action.

Originally posted by EarthChilde
reply to post by Starchild23

Which parts? If I were to create a timeline going forward it would look something like this:

Mar 2012 - Military Action in Syria (This is the excuse to start the guns a 'firin')
Apr 2012 - Iranian Involvement in Syria, thus in Iran (Iran has deal signed with Syria but will wait for drama)
Apr 2012 - Due to Iranian involvement two fronts, Israel and U.S. through Syria
Apr 2012 - Posturing and Threats from Russia and China to get out of Iran, Chinese protectorate NK blustering
May 2012 - NK attacks SK in some manor as a message that China will become active
May 2012 - Eqypt sides with Arab countries, you now have Syria, Egypt and Iran vs U.S. and Nato (Europe incl Britain)
June 2012 - Russia and China deploy observation posts in region (publicly, already obviously had behind scenes)
July 2012 - War effort waging with no clear outcome
July 2012 - BRIC countries ready to take stand and do more than feed Iran through backdoor
July 2012 - Opening Ceremony of Olympics, world outcry that they are continued, but leaders claim need for freedom to not be smothered. BRIC athletes are not present.
Aug 2012 - BRIC forms coalition and sends troops into region for active duty
Aug 2012 - Alien 'disclosure' at 2012 Olympics. World goes into panic.
Sept 2012 - U.S. nukes Iran and most of middle east making sheets of radioactive glass. (borrowed phrase from another ATS poster, very relevant)
Sept 2012 - Russia nukes part of europe, U.S. nukes part of asia.
Oct 2012 - world is in survival mode with no to little oil flowing, markets destroyed nuclear winter on 1/3 of planet over half of population dying from starvation alone.
Nov 2012 - Continued stress, one world government formed out of ashes, people cry for it
Dec 2012 - eCat turned on in dramatic effect on the Mayan (for drama) calendar end bringing 'new world', unbeknownst to those of us left, that it is the same ol PTB pulling the strings

Overactive imagination...I I can only hope nothing like happens.

ATS Thread

Let's hope we are all wrong and things change their current course to find one of sustainable peace.
edit on 23-2-2012 by EarthChilde because: added quote

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Glassbender777
I really dont see America starting the war, they might finish it, but firing the first round, NO, Now Israel is a whole different ball game, they have twichy fingers and are very paranoid of Iran, and rightfully so, after being threatened to be wiped off the face of the earth. China and Russia dont want a war either, they are much happier right now with growing friends in the region, growing economies, and they are just using there military as a scare tactic for Israel and the west. Dont get me wrong, this could turn violent tommorrow if either side wanted too, I guess its going to come down to which Nation actually has the Balls to say No more war, lets talk about an Iran with Nuclear energy, Not a bomb, I would be Ok with that, Hell Israel, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, North Korea, UK, and the US all have Nuclear bombs and Nuclear energy, and there was No war for those nations seeking Nukes, Why are they so Hell bent on Iran, is it because Iran is the last powerful nation in the region, that controlls most of the worlds oil, I think so, and I think the western nations cant stand it, and want the Iranian nation controlled from within.

ahmedinejad never actually said that - the translation was that " zionism needs to erased from history "
'wiping Isreal off the map' was never mentioned and is a neocon myth that due to the likes of Fox news pushing it caught hold in the imination of the west .

we've all been played to the extent that in its most basic form its that Israel = good , Iran = bad.

just like our fathers feared those evil no good pinko russians - our programming for the 21st century is right on schedule.

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 05:41 PM
I think that Iran will do something stupid like fire a missile at a US ship.

The Us will respond by sinking one or more of Iran's ships.

The Iran navy gets worried and launches weapons against US ships.

The US navy responds massively.
The US over several days takes out all of Iran's coastal positions and sinks most of Iran's navy.

Israel sees the opportunity it's been waiting for and launches attacks against Iran's nuke facilities that they know about.

The US states that they did not sanction the raid. They were only interesting taking out Iran's navy.

It's over in less than two weeks and Iran's navy is scrap metal as well as most of it's coastal military infrastructure.

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 05:41 PM
> 4. Israel, US, and NATO hit Iran first.

My $$ is on number 4, as this concentrates the most resources available to be used at once, a single 12 hour campaign that aims to;

1) Target nuclear installations and military assets engaged in their defence

2) Target military assets that threaten Western installations / platforms / population centres in retaliation

[Western Order of Battle]

Israel can contribute ~100 F-15I/F-16I carrying a total of ~ 200 BLU-109 "bunker busters" from their stockpile

US has 1 Carrier Group in the Persian Gulf, and 2 Carrier groups in the Arabian Sea, so say another ~150 F/A-E type aircraft with AAM or more Bunker busters, with Growlers attached for SEAD and Jamming support.

Each carrier groups then has at least 3 Aegis platforms between them with >100 VLS tubes a piece, not all will be filled with Tomahawks but I am sure ~300 could be a conservative estimate with reserve.

Nuclear attack submarines in the region can add perhaps 50 Tomahawks to the "volley" launched at short ranges, while stationing one of four Ohio Class SSGN's in the Arabian sea among the carrier groups could add ~150 Tomahawks.

US Air force could provide potentially several hundred aircraft of F-16 / F-15 mix in perhaps a similar manner to the Israeli force, potentially flown from Kuwait and UAE, protected by PAC-3 and THAAD and a friendly Carrier group offshore. Bases here and in Afghanistan can also launch Global Hawk / RQ-170 recon drones, Predators A/B's, with the US military winning the hearts and minds of Afghans by burning Qur'an I wouldn't believe manned platforms from these bases is currently viable.

US Air force is likely to commit unskilled they may or may not be, in the Middle East, from China, and from Russia?

Single day massive strike over their territory then pull back, Arabian sea fleets get blue water coverage, Persian Gulf fleets can sail into port under umbrella of friendly territory, Israeli war jets fly home, counterattack after the short lived campaign can be portrayed as act of aggression.

IRBM arsenal is attrited by conventional forces in campaign by vast Tomahawk attack, staggered retaliation is absorbed by missile defense, High CEP of Iranian counter attack negates numeric effect - some splashing into Mediterranean or desert, plus they are conventional warheads.

Russia could deploy forces to protect Iran but by the time they get there its all over and theirs not much to protect, plus it makes Iranian leadership look incompetent to the masses - who if are left firmly undisturbed (very important) and perhaps uninformed (TV's on the brink and messages of peace) may feel more nonplussed.

If somehow "hordes of fighters" then assemble off coast of friendly fleets stick tongue firmly in cheek and claim the importance of nuclear deterrence.

edit on 24-2-2012 by mazer2012 because: Truncated text

edit on 24-2-2012 by mazer2012 because: Can't spell

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:33 AM
Oh for heavens sake, why not just send in a special forces team of two or three people and take out the Iranian leadership with a few bullets to the head etc. Or alternatively get chummy with one or two military generals inside the Irainian army and organise a coup. Far less messy and saves many lives. Dont forget this very nearly succeeded in 1944 when Hitler came within a whisker of being sent to Hell. It is not impossible.

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:31 PM
reply to post by Genfinity

"How do you think a war with Iran will unfold?"

I believe Iran will not fight back militarily like we think.

I believe they will use sleeper cells in attacking countries to fight back.

All it would take is for a hundred Iranian sleeper cells in the USA to pour poison into Americas drinking water.

I don't know if such cells exist. But I'm sure they have thought about it.

We shall see.

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 03:21 PM
How about a false flag ?
The U.S. fires a russian nuke at Israel and blames Iran.
That would justify a war to the rest of the world.

Has Iran or Saudi Arabia Acquired Soviet-Era Tactical Nukes?
23 10 2011

Iran’s Black Market Nuclear Warheads Are an Open Secret


by Matthew Nasuti

On March 21, 2008, this author was among a group of Foreign Service officers and diplomats who received a briefing at the State Department on Iran. The Department’s Middle East expert, under questioning by this author, told the group that it was “common knowledge” in the region that Iran had acquired tactical nuclear weapons from one or more of the former Soviet Republics. Using the vague term “common knowledge” allowed the expert to discuss the information in an unclassified presentation. This disclosure was consistent with reports that have been circulating for years. On April 9, 1988, the Jerusalem Post reported that Iran had acquired four tactical nuclear weapons from Kazakhstan. The Post cited Iranian documents obtained by the Israeli government and authenticated by U.S. Congressional investigators. In March 1992, “The Arms Control Reporter” published an article confirming that Iran had acquired four nuclear warheads from Russia. A May 1992, report in “The European” claimed that Iran had acquired two nuclear warheads from the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan. These reports were all generally confirmed in a 2002 interview given by General Yuri Baluyevsky, then Russia’s Deputy Chief of Staff. A report in the Cleveland Jewish News, dated January 27, 2006, reported that there were 20 sites in Iran in which dispersed tactical nuclear warheads were being stored. Finally there was a report that Iran had acquired four 152mm nuclear artillery shells from Kazakhstan that were shipped to Iran through Bulgaria.

The State Department’s 2008, admission that Iran was already a nuclear power was raised by this author in open e-mails and other communications with State Department legal advisor Stephen Townley. He would neither comment on the admission nor did he raise any claim that the information was classified. This author then notified the State Department’s Inspector General that the Secretary of State was making public statements and official statements to Congress regarding Iran that were not correct, but Deputy General Counsel Karen Ouzts told this author that her office would not investigate the allegations, giving no explanation for ignoring potential criminal offenses.

On July 26, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared on the NBC news show “Meet the Press” and stated that the U.S. will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. This follows her April 22, 2009, testimony to Congress that Iran will never obtain a nuclear weapon and vowed that the U.S. would employ “crippling sanctions” to prevent that. She was to make similar statements in 2010 and 2011. It needs to be determined if Secretary Clinton intentionally misled Congress and the American public.

The question of whether any State Department officials have ever misled Congress about this matter is currently the subject of two investigations by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC). The OSC has assigned case numbers of MA-12-0180 and DI-12-0250 to its separate inquiries.

A further element of corroboration is that the possession of tactical nuclear weapons by Iran suddenly makes sense out of some inexplicable Western efforts to-date in the region. For example:

1. Israel does not need 400 nuclear warheads to defend itself against non-nuclear neighbors.

2. Israel does not need its Arrow-2 and the U.S. Patriot (PAC-3) anti-missile systems simply to deal with some Iranian missiles such as the Shahab-4. Even if they were loaded with chemical agents, the risk to Israel is minimal. This author served as a Captain with the U.S. Air Force’s 487th Tactical (Nuclear) Missile Wing and he was trained in chemical warfare. Chemical dispersion by ballistic missile is difficult and clumsy and more of a nuisance than a weapon of mass destruction. These very expensive anti-missile systems make sense only if the threat is from existing nuclear warheads.

3. The United States does not need to maintain between 60 and 90 B-61 nuclear gravity bombs at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey unless there is a localized nuclear threat.

4. The United States and some of its European allies have been promoting a very costly ballistic missile shield for Europe, even at the risk of antagonizing Russia. The vehemence of this expensive effort only makes sense if the threat is current and real, and if it is a nuclear threat.

5. Finally, the United States and Israel have all but ruled out air strikes on Iranian nuclear targets, which only makes sense if Iran has the ability to respond with tactical warheads. For Iran, giving such warheads to terrorists or having its own special operations forces covertly use the warheads would leave not implicate I

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 03:22 PM
The actual number of tactical nuclear weapons manufactured by the former Soviet Union is stunning. Rough estimates have it producing 4300 nuclear missile and air dropped warheads, 2000 nuclear artillery and mortar rounds. 1500 nuclear torpedoes and other Naval ordinance, and 14,000 nuclear land mines. That does not include specially designed Spetznaz warheads. Many of the tactical weapons were dispersed in Soviet republics which underwent revolutions when the Soviet Union broke up. In January 2006, the prestigious Washington, D.C.-based Council on Foreign Relations, in a background paper entitled: “Loose Nukes,” rejected the above estimates and stated that the Soviet Union had even more nuclear warheads. Its estimate was 27,000. The reality is that no one in the West knows for sure how many tactical and strategic warheads were produced or where they are today.

President Obama’s National Security Advisor reportedly has a list of lost or missing nuclear warheads from both U.S. and Soviet stockpiles (the U.S. reportedly has lost at least 11 warheads). Thomas E. Donilon should be pressed to reveal the total number of warheads that are not unaccounted for. The number is likely to be shocking.

On May 13, 2009, Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller sent a cable to the U.S. State Department in which she recounted a briefing that Egypt’s Ambassador to the United Nations Maged Abdelaziz, gave to her and other officials during meetings on May 5th and 7th. Abdelaziz stated that Egypt had been offered nuclear weapons after the breakup of the Soviet Union but had declined them. Under questioning Ambassador Abdelaziz stated that he had personal knowledge of this as a result of his being in Moscow. The cable was reported by the Guardian newspaper on December 19, 2010, in its story: “Egypt Turned Down Nuclear Weapons After Collapse of the Soviet Union.”

On March 22, 2004, Fox News reported on Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir’s interview with al-Qaeda’s No. 2, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri. Dr. Zawahiri told Mir that so-called suitcase nuclear weapons (each weighing 50-80 kilograms) were available on the black market in central Asia for anyone with $30 million. He stated that al-Qaeda had sent representatives to Tashkent, Uzbekistan and to one other regional country (allegedly Kazakhstan) and had purchased several.

Western news reporters need to pose carefully phrased questions to Secretary Clinton and to State Department, Pentagon and White House spokespersons in order to eliminate any wiggle room. They also need to insist on yes or no answers. One suggestion question is:

“Does the United States have any intelligence that suggests that Iran ever acquired any type of nuclear warhead?”

The answer has to be “Yes” and then the inquiry can continue forward regarding the specificity and reliability of the intelligence information.

There has been much criticism from Republicans in the United States regarding President Obama’s policy of reconciliation with Iran. If all the facts be known, that policy may be a reasonable one. If Iran does possess nuclear weapons, then those proponents who recklessly advocate preemptive air strikes on Iran and the commencement of a new war are acting irresponsibly. A nuclear conflict should not be risked solely so that politicians can score points with fringe elements of their political base.

Part of the problem is that there is deliberate short-term memory within the U.S. Government regarding Iran. Some of the facts regarding Iran’s nuclear program are never discussed in the West as they are uncomfortable reminders of Western mischief. One such basic question is:

“How did Iran’s nuclear programs begin?”

The answer is that in 1975, Shah Reza Pahlavi signed a multi-billion dollar deal with a German joint venture company to construct two nuclear reactors outside of Bushehr, Iran. Then in 1977, in meetings between representatives of the Shah and President Jimmy Carter, the U.S. Government endorsed Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology. It did so even though the Shah had no civilian need for nuclear power at the time. The American motivation was money. The Shah proposed to purchase four nuclear reactors from the United States, specifically from Westinghouse. There were no reported Israeli objections to the Westinghouse sale. While that specific deal was never finalized the Shah continued his construction at Bushehr, Iran. Its two reactors were later completed by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In conclusion, the Iranians know they have tactical nuclear warheads, as do Western governments. Everyone else is being kept in the dark. Secrecy in this instance is counterproductive. The world’s policy regarding Iran needs to be formulated, but only after a full discussion of all the facts, options and risks. That is what democracy is supposed to be all about. The world community also needs to engage in an open debate about the true scope and perils of black market nuclear warheads. Finally, the citizens of those nations that are potential targets for these weapons need to be better prepared for the consequences of their possible use.

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 05:14 AM
Israel will provoke Iran into attacking them. This will fulfill many religious prophesies that Israel want to take place. U.S will side with Israel and WWIII will begin.

I really hope this is not so, but it seems this has been written in stone for a very long time now. Things are going to get very strange within this year.

Maybe there is something to 2012 after all. I mean things do seem to be falling into place.

God help us all.

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 05:41 AM
- I dont think Israel have the capacity to do a successful air campaign against Iran on its own. Its to far to fly, and the configuration of the jets would make them wonrable against Iran's air defence systems.

- The only sure thing Israel have to strike Iran with are their Jericho 2 and 3 missiles. But i dont think Israel have enough of these missiles to strike Iran efficiently, or to keep up the strikes over a longer period of time. Using these missiles for strike purposes against Iran, also weekends Israels nuclear deterrent capacity against other aggressors.

I dont think Israel will attack Iran on its own. But i do think they might create a false flag attack against American interests. And somehow blame Iran to get the US more active.

Israel would have to stage a very large event. One that would really make a impression on the American people.
Something in the line of 911 would do the job.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:53 PM
reply to post by Genfinity

I think the Israelis would want to secure a place in Syria first before they attack. This is because they need to sent or set up a reactionary force to deal with Hezbullah in Lebanon. Their air force will attack from the east from US carriers instead of the three overland routes which is too far away and it will probably be a fight to the finish. A limited war would only delay or interrupt Iran's nuclear ambitions but once you attack Iran there is no way Iran is going to not retaliate. Only a change of government from this war could secure longer lasting peace. When there is no trust where can there be peace. I hope both these nations don't come to blows but instead work for peaceful co existance like Jordan and Israel. Its always the head of state that creates all these problems. They should go and fight themselves. A kick boxing match would be nice.

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 02:47 PM
reply to post by destinedkid17

Why so complicated? Just point the HAARP thing at the underground nuclear base/facility and create an earthquake of 9.8 on the Richter scale and all would be buried. I often read about US possessing all these wonderful
hi tech weapons so now is the time to use it. Precise, on the dot and saves lives and money....or is it maybe the US still do not have it. Imagine create sandstorm to blind the soldiers and bury their tanks,,,,tidal waves to sink their little suicide its endless what you can do with your imagination if you have that capability.

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:00 PM
reply to post by Genfinity

I reckon the American government will nuke Tehran. I honestly think they will.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in