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: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:01 AM
It seems to me that there is a general acceptance on ATS that there is an impending invasion of Iran that is going to take place by the end of this year. Recently ATS has been awash with statements from Iran and America that claim to prove war in immanent. I do not hold this view, I do think that at some point Iran will be attacked by the west however I do not think that this is going to happen this anytime soon. In this thread I will set out why I don’t think Iran is going to be invaded any time soon.

The first stumbling block facing western governments is the legality of any future war in the Middle East is going to be scrutinised and questioned more than any other war in history due to the controversy of the Iraq war. In the UK there is currently a high profile inquiry into the events and legality of the second gulf war. Although this is a UK inquiry its findings will no doubt be looked at in other states that went to war with Iraq to look at the legality of that war. Until the legality of the Iraq war can be established it is highly unlikely that the UK or America would consider a war with Iran under similar circumstances.

Any potential invasion of Iran by western or NATO forces would also require a resolution from the United Nations Security Council. This is going to be an even bigger issue than it was leading up to the invasion of Iraq because Iran is strongly allied with Russia and China who will likely veto any resolution for war.

This alliance between Iran, Russia and China is important because any war between the west and Iran would cause a sharp decline in diplomatic relations, there are however other reasons why this makes a war less likely. As already pointed out it could make gaining the baking of the UN very problematic if not impossible but it presents other problems. In 1995 Russia agreed a $800 million contract with Iran to build the Bushehr Nuclear power plant due to be completed in 2010, through a company called Atomstroiexport of which 50.2 % is owned by the Russian government and 49.8 % by Gazprom. Iran has also sought nuclear technology and assistance from China, Pakistan and even North Korea. Any pre-emptive strikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities could kill many Russians and Chinese as collateral damage. There is another important dimension to relations between these sates

China and Russia are also the main states party to the Shanghai cooperation organisation (SCO), the SCO is a group of mostly Asian states who cooperate with each other on matters of defence and to a lesser extent economic trading assistance. It’s rather like a cross between an Asian NATO and EU however Iran is not part of this group, it his however listed as an “observer state”. The only reason it is an observer state and not a full member is because of current UN sanctions against Iran. It is hard to believe the members of the SCO would defend Iran in any NATO strike, but they (and other SCO states) could make things rather difficult. For example refusing assistance in any military operations, limiting oil production, providing aid to Iran and being publicly vocal in condemning any attacks.

One of the things that are brought up often when discussing evidence of an immanent war is the comments made by both the White House and the Iranian administration. Almost all of these can be ignored. For Iran it is beneficial to use America as a bogie man as this gives the Iranian public and government a common enemy which the government can use to justify domestic and foreign policy. Showing a tough line on the west also ensures the government remain popular with their religious population. For the Americans any claims about the Iranian threat need to be looked at case by case. Most come form neoconservatives who make such comments for purely ideological motives, others make it because it sounds good. Obama dose it because it keeps him popular, it is designed to show the public that he take the threat seriously, he’s doing something about, and it justifies elements of his foreign policy (for example all those UN sanctions). Arguably it is mutually beneficial for both states to take a hard line on each other as it assists them domestically but dose relatively little harm internationally.

A reason often cited as giving justification for any war is that Iran is moving towards developing nuclear weapons. With that in mind then surly DPRK would make a better target as they really do have nuclear weapons. Current estimates say that Iran’s nuclear weapons program is at best going to produce a nuclear weapon at some time in 2015 (the ICBM delivery systems will be further off) meaning that a attack could be expected to come before 2015, possibly 2013/4. That however is still 3 or 4 years away, before this it is still possible that Israel might carry out an attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities. This would not be a first for Israel, In 1981 they destroyed the exodus nuclear plant in Iran and with that, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, it was not until 1991 that Iran actively sought to reactivate there nuclear ambitions. Israel destroyed the nuclear site at Al-Kibar in Syria in 2007 showing that they are still prepared to take measures to attack their enemy’s nuclear sites. Therefore I think it is licklier that Israel might conduct air combat operations against Iran’s nuclear facilities than it is for America or NATO. However any attack by Israel would only fuel terrorist attacks against Israel and further destabilise the Palestinian territories. There is also a possibility that Iran adopts a latent nuclear policy similar to Japan were by they have the ability to build a nuclear weapon however don’t actually build a weapon unless it is needed.
Another major difficulty with any war with Iran is that it will increase terrorism in such a way that Al’Qa’Ida suddenly won’t look so bad. The removal of the supreme leader will increase the threat from many Shia terrorist groups. Iran, which can effectively dictate the activities of its international terrorist networks (Hamas, Hezbollah, PIJ and so on), has them on low simmer at this point when it comes to western targets. An attack against Iran would blow this control valve off, resulting in a terrorist superhighway running from Iran through Iraq into Jordan and Syria right towards Israel. This network would also unleash itself against allied Arab states in the region and also cause havoc against US forces and NATO allies in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is a risk to big for any world leader to take without a UN resolution, domestic support and further to this having the means to do so because just now the west does not have the means to attack Iran.
The west does not have the means to attack Iran just now for a number of reasons. The main one is purely economical, current estimates assume the war in Iraq has cost $3 trillion, any war in Iran could cost more. The simple reality is that the west cannot afford to spend that sort of money, most of it would probably come from America it would be very hard to justify this to the American public. Another reason this could be difficult is current operations in Afghanistan were the job is far for complete with 94 000 US troops in the country, and they need more. In addition to this as has already been stated any war against Iran would be political suicide for the current Obama administration, the public would start drawing comparisons between Obama and Bush. Interestingly one claim i have seen on ATS is that war in going to commence in the next few months, there is no way Obama would do this before the midterms.


[edit on 7-8-2010 by kevinunknown]

[edit on 7-8-2010 by kevinunknown]

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:46 AM
reply to post by kevinunknown

There are many considerations here. One not mentioned is the need for some type of false flag attack to get the American public involved. This time an attack against Iran is against Russian interests. Any false flag event will be publicly "outed", either through leaks or openly. Foreign intelligence agencies will do it.

BTW, the Bushehr NPP is scheduled to be finally completed this month and be operational in September. There are about 1600 Russian engineers and construction workers on site or nearby.

Many people don't think Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

There is another consideration. Iran is an ally with Russia. Many scientists from Iran are now in Russia kinda for work study. They are protected. The leadership of Iran could be protected in Russia also.

Their are about 25,000 people of the Jewish faith living in Iran.

Before an attack could occur Americans or westerners in general would have to be evacuated or asked to leave.

Which brings us back to the false flag event. But it won't work. Russia and China are not going to rubber stamp any UN resolution that states "by any means necessary".

Putin has the White Swans in the air constantly. They have entered British air space. Akula class subs have been spotted just last year off the eastern seaboard of the US

Iran may now have the ss-300 missile defense system, but purchased through proxies. They do have the Oniks missile. If fired from the air some feel that it is unstoppable.

The use of nukes or even DU weapons probably has been warned against. Russia is short of water. The Caspian Sea could easily be contaminated.

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:53 AM
reply to post by chorizo4

Ah thanks for the information about the Bushehr NPP, I’ll make that change in the OP. The estimate for 2015 for a nuclear weapon still stands however that came from German intelligence and i have seen other articles that talk about 2015 or there abouts. Just wondering, are you saying that you think there is going to be a false flag against the Caspian sea that will be used as a justification for war. My thread was written without really taking any conspiracies into account and looking at the current political climate so its quite a interesting view you have.

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:54 AM
a very well written piece with some very good points and maybe one of the best arguments for why we wouldn't go for it. definitely food for thought however I'm still of the opinion that israel will strike iran's nuclear facilities pretty soon. which will force America to come to it's defence weather NATO get into this, that might be a different story. i think this could lead to china and Russia having a proxy war against the U.S in much the same way that America fueled one against the soviet afghan campaign. i think TPTB would welcome such global chaos with rising unemployment, failing economic system and national debt in most country's at an unplayable rate and rising. chances are it will be the same as always bankroll both sides and it's win win. that's my opinion of the situation. it's not as well written as yours and doesn't bring forth as strong an argument as yours but I'm going on the bases of they have done it before they will do it again, and again!

thank you for an intriguing read !

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:59 AM
SORRY, THIS IS THE END OF THE THREAD. I didn’t realise it had been cut off the end.

Although there are some very apparent similarities between Iran and Iraq under Saddam Husain, the differences are very important. The main one is that Iran is significantly more advanced in technological and military terms than Iraq ever was. Iran has its own advanced military technology industry that produce tanks, weapons, APC’s and even fighter jets and submarines, they would not be the same push over that the Iraqi army of 2003 were. Iran is also home to some of the world’s toughest terrain that would prove to be a challenge to infantry and impassable for vehicles. The population of Iran more than double that of Iraq and covers significantly more land mass, the population is also less secular than Iraq. This means that the population are likely to resist occupation more violently than Iraq and over a larger area. This coupled with the mass terrorism any invasion would unleash would prove to be very costly for the west both economically and in term of the cost of lives.

For the reason outlined above I do not think there is going to be any attack against Iran this year. At the earliest I think any attack might come in the form of air strikes at some point in 2013. Saying that however if the current climate in the Middle East was to drastically change it could happen sooner, or not atoll. It is also I think far more likely that the west strike at DPRK before Iran as it presents less of the problems an invasion of Iran does. It is also my stance that although any invasion of Iran would have a high casualty rate the war would be won, however that war is far off in the future.

Sources. l/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 09:03 AM
reply to post by kevinunknown

The Caspian Sea is way off limits for anyone to be messing with. The target for a false flag would be the US itself one would assume.

I keep looking for a big "dump day" on Wall Street on a Friday to give a tip off of some weekend activity. Why? Bank holiday. And they will possibly shut down the financial markets for awhile. Looked like this Friday the plunge protection team was at work.

Anytime the stock market goes up or stays up unexpectedly look at how the dollar traded against the Euro. More quantitative easing here.

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 12:11 PM
reply to post by chorizo4

That’s a interesting idea, however i disagree that they would use a false flag operation to give a justification for a war, they would still have most of the problems I have outlined above in additions to the problems that a false flag has.

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 12:18 PM
Yes, I have to agree with OP. There are just too many hurdles. Even if Iran is set up with some type of false flag operation, the bottom line is the bottom line. America is broke! Any more debt would completely implode what's left of our economy, and that is CERTAINLY NOT going to happen before EITHER election either 2010 or 2012.

Let's not forget also that Iran's buddy, China, has a military force that nearly equals the total population of the US! Unless we all want to start learning Mandarin, I don't think we better mess with that hornet's nest.

Iranian Prez Ahmenutjhob knows this - that's why he continues to run his mouth. He is aware of this stalemate.

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 12:43 PM
Dont know to much
.but a country like us. then europe,russia being threatned,grain stopped. all these are big signs man gold high medication shortage ,they want iran gone ,its banksters ,rothschild dont have a bank in iran yet,its stopping his dream hes old ya know , usa ,uk,europe had millions of unmployed.
no chance of legit competititive anything no industries made up job positions and the people doing the jobs know it,30 people to change a light bulb,what say with a giant like china chucking everything out for nothing,
world pop is in masive need of reduction (i know my family wil prob get done in to)then by hook or crook these mega rich will do something to protect there empires . they will be fine.,it will bring about unity after such horrific loses ,billions?. you dont need to worry then about finding jobs, the destruction will be the work rebuilding but with a new alliance.

id bet on the short and curlys this will happen before 2012. if iran submits and closes down it nuc power ,they will get it,dident japan surender,what did saddam do,kuwait ,well he went home back to iraq after a few weeks,
this is about world domination now in my opinion america is loseing its edge every day so is europe .if they wait five years they will never get what they want or think they can get. they are goin soon .and we are to. these people have probally drawn new borders and which citys to let go,also how many die.
I might well be very wrong ,i hope so

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 01:44 PM
reply to post by Rockerchic4God

Yeah I agree with you, I don’t think we will say any “war” until 2013/4. The reason i started this thread was because the amount of scare mongering going on, on ATS over this subject.

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 02:46 PM
reply to post by impyroo

So do you think that the motivation for the war in iran would be that the Rothschild’s could start up a bank in iran.

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 07:53 PM
Excellent thread !

It was about time someone would bring people back on the ground. If Israel attacks Iran, does dot not make them the aggressor ? I don't think I've heard of any aggressive action by Iran in the last few centuries. The only thing I know about is that they were pretty ferocious killing Iraqi's when they were defending themselves against an Iraq attack.

25.000 Jewish inhabitants ? They are either protected by the Iranian government or the anti-semitic movement in Iran does not really exist.

This thread should provoke people to seriously think about this topic.

Personally I think I'm in full agreement, although I'm not well educated on the subject, I did not think an invasion or attack would be legitimate and resources for an all out war have been depleted and still are in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However I would not be surprised if it did happen I do not think it will.

Thank you for this thread. Well done

~ Sinter

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 10:52 AM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Thanks, I am glad you enjoyed. I was just trying to bring some balance to the Iran war discussion.

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 11:44 AM
reply to post by kevinunknown

Which you did great IMO.

I do not think you could have better arguments.

They are screaming about the states buried away under such massive amounts of dept, a new war will drain the money directly from public view as there are not really other reserves to use.
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.

China and Russia seem to have a polygamous relationship with Iran.

They will not agree on such actions.

Getting re-elected is also a good one. Obama will do what ever it takes to stay president and an attack on Iran would make him less popular the Bush.

As I see it Iraq was going to be a self sustaining economy. Saddam was already planning to dump the dollar and look for a replacement, like the Euro.

Iran is a self sustaining economy and rich of resources.

The first thing they did when they were in power in Iraq was giving Iraqi resource and public businesses Western owners.

Voilà... Iraq's economy has been illegally hijacked by the Anglo American empire or free markets. Leaving the people , the lands and region empty handed. Deprived from their own countries income, resources and land.

I don't think they will be able to do the same with Iran.

What did Iran ever do wrong anyway ?

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:37 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

What did iran do wrong?

Quite a bit as far as American is concerned, historically the Americans and British have been trying to gain influence. It all started back in the 1950’s when the Sha of Iran was put out of power, the Americans and British helped put him back in. Then in 1979 we had the Iranian revolution, which is what has created the government that we see now, they also stopped western influence over Iran and took a bunch of American hostages.

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 01:29 PM
reply to post by kevinunknown

Well... That's why I asked.

In my humble opinion, the people of Iran have decided they like their current government better then they did the American influence back then. With reinstalling the Sjah they proved that they didn't really care about the opinion of those against the US forcing their influence on them.

I think they have the right to do so and the US is the trying to rule the world acting like the aggressive alpha male that is always trying to consolidate their power and that it stays like that in the future.

The US should be sanctioned for violating the human rights they claim so eager, they want to spread.

Not that I blame Americans but the US government is guilty of all crimes I oppose, as imperial force that protects the empire and consolidates power and expand the horizon of a rotten bunch of low life vandals. Not only the US but also my own country is eager to serve our imperial way of life.

I just feel its wrong. No offense

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:38 PM
My feeling is that Iran is the new Cuba, in that there is too much support from the other emerging Superpowers of China and Russia to allow direct US action to take place. The current leader of the country has been labeled a madman but it must be remember that the stabilisation of Pakistan is seen as a higher priority than inflaming the region further by opening a new front on the War on Terror.

The only country who could directly strike them at present is Israel and to carry out a nuclear attack would result in them being persona non grata throughout the 'civilized world', weather the cry was 'defense by first strike' or not.

I'd expect the intelligence agencies to chip away at the infrastructure of the Iranian society by stealth as opposed to conflict. Creating further angst amongst the youth and those that took to the streets post-elections would be a more likely route.

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:16 PM
reply to post by Extreme Pilgrim

Cuba is a very good analogy to use in this thread, i agree with you on that. I don’t think there is going to be any nuclear weapons used, in any attack but i suppose it is a possibility.

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:47 PM
reply to post by kevinunknown

great post!well thought out and presented the only thing i think that may have been left out was russia and china's inability to wage war at the moment.

russia is on fire and having huge problems with national disasters and what not fires grain shortages

same for china but its floods landslides and what not and china is vulnrable due to the 3gorges dam project

im personaly hopeing that war isnt nessisary and that iran has some kind of revoloution or something else comes up to stop this from happening but i feel safe in my personal belifs that those nations wont get involved directly in a conflict with us troops now china might take tiawan if were distracted and russia could grab a few stans and old client states but direct war between usa russia and china wont happen we all dont want that and for right or wrong rus and china are too vunrable at the moment more so china then russia

i give the following example(and as i dont know exactly what would happen if we did hit the target im gonna mention im kinda curious to get other peoples views) so say china says there gonan send troops to support iran

i dont see them having the logistics to get there quick enough and as screwed up an idea and statement it is if we took out 3 gorges damn what would happen to china? hope it dosent come to that but as several people have said war is hell and the usa dosent alwase play by the rules

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:53 PM
reply to post by KilrathiLG

It has been suggested that the release of water from a dam breach will be moving volume of water so massive it will have an effect on the rotation of the earth.

I would say it would not even be an option when 10.000 nuclear missiles were launched by China.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in