# Pretext for War against Iran?



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Canadian officials are reporting on CNN that they have arrested two men who were plotting to derail a train running from Canada to the U.S. The two men allegedly have links to al Qaeda in Iran. So is this going to become the pretext for another U.S.-led war in the Middle East - against Iran this time? I noticed how this all fits neatly together on the map. We hit Iraq on one side and Afghanistan on the other.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

No one is going to start a war over a plot. I don't even think an actual derailment would do it either.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Regillus said:


> Canadian officials are reporting on CNN that they have arrested two men who were plotting to derail a train running from Canada to the U.S. The two men allegedly have links to al Qaeda in Iran. So is this going to become the pretext for another U.S.-led war in the Middle East - against Iran this time? I noticed how this all fits neatly together on the map. We hit Iraq on one side and Afghanistan on the other.


You have no command of foreign affairs, and I suspect have posted this thread to provoke a reaction. Very silly. You should follow the advice of Gilbert and Sullivan:

"_Noble statesman do not itch to interfere with matters which they do not understand._"


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Regillus said:


> Canadian officials are reporting on CNN that they have arrested two men who were plotting to derail a train running from Canada to the U.S. The two men allegedly have links to al Qaeda in Iran. So is this going to become the pretext for another U.S.-led war in the Middle East - against Iran this time? I noticed how this all fits neatly together on the map. We hit Iraq on one side and Afghanistan on the other.


Maps of oil fields generally serve as a reasonable indicator of where certain military forces will strike next. :rolleyes2:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Regillus said:


> Canadian officials are reporting on CNN that they have arrested two men who were plotting to derail a train running from Canada to the U.S. The two men allegedly have links to al Qaeda in Iran. So is this going to become the pretext for another U.S.-led war in the Middle East - against Iran this time? I noticed how this all fits neatly together on the map. We hit Iraq on one side and Afghanistan on the other.


First, explain how planned, deliberate acts of terror serve as "pretexts."


----------



## rsgordon (Dec 6, 2012)

The new excuse to continue warring in the Middle East is that fracking is more dangerous than places on Shaver's map.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Difficult to see how an al-Qaeda plot could serve as a pretext for war against Iran, given that Iran and al-Qaeda hardly have a history of being the bestest of buddies. Still, if we know anything by now it is that no justification is too shaky to be used to start a war. In particular when, as Shaver points out, there are also oil fields present.


----------



## DJH_of_Doom (Apr 3, 2013)

Utter codswallop old chap.

It's not enough to start a war, I doubt the US has the resources for three wars, it's not really al-Qaeda's style and al-Qaeda does not have strong links with Iran. In fact, Iran is very isolated from the rest of the middle east.


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

What?

My dearest and esteemed Shaver, please consider US oil production the past 8 years. Other countries will run out much sooner than the US.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

The "it's about the oil, stupid" purported explication of US foreign policy is to 'geopolitics' what the expression of disgust - "we woz robbed" - is when one's sporting team is soundly thrashed by a superior opponent. That is, unworthy of acknowledgement in a serious debate. 

:icon_headagainstwal*cuk: I just acknowledged it.:smile::devil:


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Balfour said:


> The "it's about the oil, stupid" purported explication of US foreign policy is to 'geopolitics' what the expression of disgust - "we woz robbed" - is when one's sporting team is soundly thrashed by a superior opponent. That is, unworthy of acknowledgement in a serious debate.
> 
> :icon_headagainstwal*cuk: I just acknowledged it.:smile::devil:


Indeed, personal and corporate self interests have never interfered in international politics. I mean really now, what government, corporation or individual would want to control supply and price of a limited natural resource which is heavily relied upon globally to run the vast majority of machines? We should of course dismiss the arguement out of hand and pay no attention to the details surrounding it.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

justonemore said:


> Indeed, personal and corporate self interests have never interfered in international politics. I mean really now, what government, corporation or individual would want to control supply and price of a limited natural resource which is heavily relied upon globally to run the vast majority of machines?


Quoted as bears no relation to the statement advanced by Balfour and quoted by justonemore, so basically a smear.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> The "it's about the oil, stupid" purported explication of US foreign policy is to 'geopolitics' what the expression of disgust - "we woz robbed" - is when one's sporting team is soundly thrashed by a superior opponent. That is, unworthy of acknowledgement in a serious debate.
> 
> :icon_headagainstwal*cuk: I just acknowledged it.:smile::devil:


Do you need a passport to visit cloud cukoo land? :rolleyes2:

The globe is strewn with war-zones and undemocratic regimes under which terrible violations of individual freedom and countless barbaric atrocities are being enacted. A greater proportion of these we almost never see reported in the news (indeed you may be unaware of many of them). American foreign policy, and indeed the eyes of the world, is blind to the plight of these citizens. All of these countries are without natural reserves of oil. Those countries which the U.S has recently *ahem* _liberated_ are oozing with black gold. C'mon Mr. B you can do the math! :icon_smile_wink:

Although as a Bush Jr. supporter you probably appreciate the sound thrashing by superior opponents that 'robs' people of their right to a culture of their own. :icon_pale:


----------



## Ekphrastic (Oct 4, 2009)

Iran presents an interesting situation. Robert Baer, former CIA officer and author of several books on geopolitics, states his opinion that Iran has been at war with the United States since the early 1980s; he claims that Iran was ultimately behind several bombings in the Middle East (the embassy bombing in Beirut, among others) and that they even may have helped al-Qa'ida with the 9/11 attacks. 

If we accept his argument--and, given the research and first-hand knowledge he presents in his books, his argument is compelling--then one must ask why the United States hasn't yet invaded Iran. Goodness knows we've invaded other countries--Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, Cuba, Vietnam--based on much less. 

Additionally, Iran sits on oil-rich land; true, their land doesn't have as much oil as, say, Saudi Arabia or Iraq, but Iran does have quite a bit.

In other words, all of the traditional theories about why the United States invades countries--to control petroleum reserves, to install friendly regimes, to avenge violent acts--don't seem to apply when we're talking about Iran, and I have no idea why the United States has chosen the course with Iran that it has. When I hear about this supposed train hijacking, that's what I think about--why are we behaving like we are? (Of course, please understand that I don't advocate invading Iran. The situation just puzzles me.)


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Shaver said:


> American foreign policy, and indeed the eyes of the world, is blind to the plight of these citizens. All of these countries are without natural reserves of oil. Those countries which the U.S has recently *ahem* _liberated_ are oozing with black gold.


Canada is next!!


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Do you need a passport to visit cloud cukoo land? :rolleyes2:
> 
> The globe is strewn with war-zones and undemocratic regimes under which terrible violations of individual freedom and countless barbaric atrocities are being enacted. A greater proportion of these we almost never see reported in the news (indeed you may be unaware of many of them). American foreign policy, and indeed the eyes of the world, is blind to the plight of these citizens. All of these countries are without natural reserves of oil. Those countries which the U.S has recently *ahem* _liberated_ are oozing with black gold. C'mon Mr. B you can do the math! :icon_smile_wink:
> 
> Although as a Bush Jr. supporter you probably appreciate the sound thrashing by superior opponents that 'robs' people of their right to a culture of their own. :icon_pale:


Of course oil is important in international relations. But the suggestion that the Iraq war was oil-driven is silly. It's the foreign policy equivalent of an elementary school kid shouting "you smell" at someone when he has lost the intellectual argument.

I don't follow the underlined text.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Re Post #3: “You have no command of foreign affairs.” My command of foreign affairs is quite adequate; thank you. You really should read “The Great Game.” (by Peter Hopkirk)

Re Post #5: “First, explain how planned, deliberate acts of terror serve as ‘pretexts.’" See below.

From CNN: “As CNN National Security analyst Peter Bergen noted, ‘If these allegations are true, it would appear to be the first time that al Qaeda elements based in Iran have directed some kind of plot in the West.’...But the United States says there appears to have been some tactical co-operation between the Islamic Republic and al Qaeda. In 2011, the U.S. Treasury Department accused Iran of a ‘secret deal with al-Qa'ida allowing it to funnel funds and operatives through its territory.’...Another aspect of the alleged Canadian plot is that it underlines the enduring interest of al Qaeda and its supporters in attacking railroad systems, seeing such operations as relatively cheap and easy to carry out -- with potentially devastating results.”

With the foregoing as a beginning; allow me to set the background to my post.
In 1914 Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo. Austria-Hungary sent a formal letter making demands to Serbia; which later became known as the July Ultimatum. Serbia mobilized its army. Serbian reservists being transported on steamers on the Danube crossed onto the Austro-Hungarian side of the river at Temes-Kubin and Austro-Hungarian soldiers fired into the air to warn them off.
Austria-Hungary then declared war on Serbia and mobilized its troops. Because of the system of interlocking treaties in existence at the time this caused other countries to mobilize their troops, and the war was on. My point being: One man was killed, and a world war resulted. Doesn’t take much to start a war.
Fast forward to the 1960s. Does anyone recall Oplan 34A? The program of covert U.S. sabotage carried out against North Vietnam? When North Vietnam figured out that is was the U.S. that was doing it; they sent patrol boats out to attack the USS Maddox and Turner Joy. This became known as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and it caused President Johnson to have Congress pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which gave the President nearly unlimited authority to defend U.S. ships etc. against North Vietnamese aggression. The attacks on the Maddox and Turner Joy provided the pretext to go to war against North Vietnam (dirty communists!); which lasted for ten years.
Iran has been an irritant to the U.S. ever since the overthrow of the Shah. Iran has for years been the world’s largest sponsor of terrorist groups around the world. More recently Iran’s nuclear program has escalated tensions in the region (i.e. Israel) and with the U.S.
Now we come to the present day and this alleged plot by al Qaeda - allegedly with support from al Qaeda elements in Iran -to blow up a passenger-laden train from Canada to the U.S. In light of the days-ago Boston Marathon bombing this could provide the Republican opposition in Congress with the opportunity to claim that Pres. Obama isn’t “doing enough” to protect America from terrorist attacks and demand that more “aggressive action” be taken - and that’s where the problem lies. Exactly what kind of “aggressive action?” This could lead to covert military action against Iran. Iran finds out about it and angrily denounces it in public. Iran then sends patrol boats (sound familiar?) out near U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf. Alternatively; Iran could send fighter jets. Recall the USS Stark (1987)? It was hit by two Exocet missiles fired from an Iraqi Mirage fighter jet. Recall the USS Cole (2000)? It was attacked by an explosives-laden boat at the Port of Aden. Al Qaeda was responsible for that attack. The U.S. Navy is touchy about planes or boats approaching Navy ships in the Persian Gulf. So either a plane or a boat from Iran approaches a Navy ship. Shooting gets started; it doesn’t really matter who fired first, and we have a war.
Regarding what I said about Iraq being on one side and Afghanistan on the other. You really should read “The Great Game.” Fabulous book. Iran is a majority Shia country. So is Iraq. If war breaks out between the U.S. and Iran; will Iraqi Shias come to Iran’s aid - join its army? Not likely. The U.S. installed a friendly gov’t in Iraq; the border would be closed just to prevent such an occurrence. The majority tribe in Afghanistan is the Pashtuns - who are of eastern Iranian origin so are friendly with the Iranians. Will the Pashtuns come to Iran’s aid? No - the U.S. installed a friendly gov’t there - the border would be closed. Leaving Iran isolated in the middle. My my what a tangled web we weave.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

DJH_of_Doom said:


> Utter codswallop old chap.
> 
> It's not enough to start a war, I doubt the US has the resources for three wars, it's not really al-Qaeda's style and al-Qaeda does not have strong links with Iran. In fact, Iran is very isolated from the rest of the middle east.


That's correct, and it's among the reasons for my hostility toward W. in the other thread: having shot our wad, so to speak, fighting a war against a non-threat, we are significantly less capable of fighting a war against a country that presents a far more legitimate target. I'm not advocating war, I'm just saying that if one's really worried about the nexus of nukes and terrorism, Iran (and Pakistan) are it. And Iran's given us plenty of cause in the past. Things far more egregious than two bombers in Canada.

Also correct: AQ and Iran are hardly the best of friends.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Regillus said:


> Re Post #3: "You have no command of foreign affairs." My command of foreign affairs is quite adequate; thank you. You really should read "The Great Game."
> 
> Re Post #5: "First, explain how planned, deliberate acts of terror serve as 'pretexts.'" See below.
> 
> ...


This isn't the Great Game. It's not a relavent paradigm anymore...perhaps in the 1980s, when the USG was worried about Soviet influence via Afghanistan reaching into Iran...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> Of course oil is important in international relations. But the suggestion that the Iraq war was oil-driven is silly. It's the foreign policy equivalent of an elementary school kid shouting "you smell" at someone when he has lost the intellectual argument.
> 
> I don't follow the underlined text.


The comment above appears to be a far more tangible cry of 'you smell' for it is most certainly (and doggedly) refusing to even engage with the intellectual argument, let alone attempt to win said argument.

Merely rubbishing the context rather than addressing the content has something of the the whiff of desperation about it. :redface:

I shall try to explain the underlined text, if you like. Exactly what is it that you don't understand? For it seems very obvious to me and I wouldn't wish to insult your intelligence............


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Canada is next!!


Would you mind giving France a good hiding whilst your at it? I've never much cared for that lot. :icon_smile:


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

A potential war with Iran will be linked directly to one single event - the closure of the Strait of Hormuz by the Iranian Navy. Indirectly, the closure of this vital shipping lane shuts off access to 20%+ of the global oil supply. All aspects of international diplomacy with Iran are designed to ensure that this lane is not closed. The Iranian Navy is extremely well stocked and more than capable of ensuring the closure of the lane. Well, close it long enough to cause havoc on the oil markets and significantly destabilise the West. But the consequence will be war with Iran - a much stronger foe than Iraq under SH and Agan combined.

As an aside, I was in D.R. Congo about 5 years ago following the aftermath of what was knows as the "Playstation War". An unbelievable event by any standards. Billions of dollars worth of natural resources (coltan) stolen, hundreds of thousands of people displaced into IDP camps and thousands killed. All for what? The phucking PS3. Still happening there too. 

It's almost always about someone else's natural resources.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Would you mind giving France a good hiding whilst your at it? I've never much cared for that lot. :icon_smile:


Don't! I like that lot. Besides, after the most recent UK defense budget, France is the last serious western European military power left. We need them.


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

A serious military power with one whole aircraft carrier? Wow, talk about the projection of power! Further, terrorism isnt a reason for war any more; we admit them as asylum seekers, pay them welfare to sit on their behinds to become second rate boxers or fund their college education during which they smoke tons of pot, give them lawyers, and spend tax dollars trying them in a civilian court. We will have reached the height of sophistication when, like Scotland, we release them from prison because they are unwell with cancer.

My disagreement with the esteemed Shaver is his remark and indeed the others here suggesting this pretext business is nothing more than code for the United States to go to war. Seriously, who else would do such work anyway? Gentlemen, please consider who occupies the White House and the fact of the matter is that those countries who do depend on the flow through the Strait might want to reconsider their future options. China imports more than anyone else and there is well underway a major rebirth of US domestic oil production even under Prsdt Obama and his relatively green policies. If these policies persist irrespective of which party controls the White House, which seems likely, the rest of the so-called democracies are going to have to find another muscle to secure their fix. I do not have first hand knowledge - we can play the game of citing newspapers going each way on this point - of who is in charge of Iraq oil fields but I can safely say that the price of gas here doesnt signify that the US conquered a country and took their oil. Besides which, the US is essentially broke and cannot afford to fight a war to ensure that those who do chiefly rely on Mid East oil get it. More importantly, my read here is that the populace wouldnt have it after the recent excursions. In some respects, there is a substantial risk that countries who just love to slam the US and its foreign policy are going to have to actually have one of their own for the first time since WW2 rather than sit on the sidelines and critique much of the stability providing dirty work from which they benefit.

The left here has been saying since Day 1 of Dub's administration that the US was looking for an excuse to duke it out with Iran. Such didnt happen during his 8 years and the risk of such happening under Obama is much less likely. The better question might be what happens when another country determines that Iran has enough electricity and decides to do something on its own.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Well said Joe.
​


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> A potential war with Iran will be linked directly to one single event - the closure of the Strait of Hormuz by the Iranian Navy. Indirectly, the closure of this vital shipping lane shuts off access to 20%+ of the global oil supply. All aspects of international diplomacy with Iran are designed to ensure that this lane is not closed. The Iranian Navy is extremely well stocked and more than capable of ensuring the closure of the lane. Well, close it long enough to cause havoc on the oil markets and significantly destabilise the West. But the consequence will be war with Iran - a much stronger foe than Iraq under SH and Agan combined.


The Iranian Navy is most unlikely to be able to close the straits, if the rest of the world didn't want them to. Iran and Iraq played that game in the early 80's in what was referred to at the time as the "Tanker War", when the US was supporting Iraq in it's war of aggression against Iran. (The avatar I use in my posts is a picture of me on the bridge wing of a Gas Tanker (LPG Carrier) that I was 2nd Mate on during that period) The RN and USN were able to keep the Straits open, even if the rest of the Gulf was very dangerous to shipping of all nations. If the USN is anywhere near as good as they seem to appear, they could sort out the IN in very short order.

As far as terrorist acts are concerned, and responsibility for them, how about the US responsibility for shooting down an Iranian Airliner in 1988? The Captain of USS Vincennes was subsequently decorated, which didn't help the situation....

For more details, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 for ease of access, you are, of course, free to find your own evidence.

Shaver's comments on the importance of oil in US foreign policy is of course pertinent. The US has only intervened, in recent years, in countries subject to the Monroe Doctrine (paraphrased as "We can do what we like in the American continent") or with oil, or in pursuit of vendettas, like in Afghanistan. Rwanda? No. Sudan? No. Bosnia? No.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

tocqueville said:


> Don't! I like that lot. Besides, after the most recent UK defense budget, France is the last serious western European military power left. We need them.


They have beautiful culture but they are simply not to be trusted in a military situation. A kick up the behind will do them the world of good.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

tocqueville said:


> Don't! I like that lot. Besides, after the most recent UK defense budget, France is the last serious western European military power left. We need them.


Yes, but who do you bet would be prepared to assist the US?:smile:

This comparison seems to suggest the numbers are still pretty comparable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures). And I agree very much with this article, complaining about European nations free-riding on the US (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...great-protector-is-looking-the-other-way.html).


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

^^^ Things have changed an awful lot since the Tanker War and an awful lot of Chinese money has bought Iranian oil. And a lot of that money has been invested in strengthening their Navy. General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in January 2012 that Iran "has invested in capabilities that could, in fact, for a period of time block the Strait of Hormuz." He also stated, "We've invested in capabilities to ensure that if that happens, we can defeat that."

So I agree with you - the would be dealt with but not before a: An awful lot of damage done and b: another war more than likely started - and the latter being, my point.

[SUP] [/SUP]


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> They have beautiful culture but they are simply not to be trusted in a military situation. A kick up the behind will do them the world of good.


Too true.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

VictorRomeo said:


> ^^^ Things have changed an awful lot since the Tanker War and an awful lot of Chinese money has bought Iranian oil. And a lot of that money has been invested in strengthening their Navy. General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in January 2012 that Iran "has invested in capabilities that could, in fact, for a period of time block the Strait of Hormuz." He also stated, "We've invested in capabilities to ensure that if that happens, we can defeat that."
> 
> So I agree with you - the would be dealt with but not before a: An awful lot of damage done and b: another war more than likely started - and the latter being, my point.


I suspect the Iranians might have the capability to shut the straits in a variety of ways - even if only temporarily. Any military engagement there could go very badly wrong.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> ^^^ Things have changed an awful lot since the Tanker War and an awful lot of Chinese money has bought Iranian oil. And a lot of that money has been invested in strengthening their Navy. General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in January 2012 that Iran "has invested in capabilities that could, in fact, for a period of time block the Strait of Hormuz." He also stated, "We've invested in capabilities to ensure that if that happens, we can defeat that." So I agree with you - the would be dealt with but not before a: An awful lot of damage done and b: another war more than likely started - and the latter being, my point. [SUP] [/SUP]


That's exactly the kind of thing that a Joint Chief of Staff would say, in order to bolster the needs of the Military, especially the Navy. 
I doubt that Iranian capabilities are that good that they can make the Straits so dangerous as to stop traffic. Limit traffic, perhaps, as the vessels are formed into convoys, but not stop it.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Guys, forget about Iran for the moment. All eyes on Syria and this talk of Sarin. It's dangerous talk, since Obama had said it was a "red line," and the GOP is frothing at the mouth for action.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Would you mind giving France a good hiding whilst your at it? I've never much cared for that lot. :icon_smile:


Sorry, no oil.

We Americans are only bloodthirsty for oil!!


----------



## doncorleon (Apr 26, 2013)

A war against Iran will never happen. It's in neither state's interest.

The Iranian government would be crippled and destroyed by U.S. military and the U.S. will go into a depression because Iran will block the oil supply.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Re Post #24: “...the US is essentially broke and cannot afford to fight a war to ensure that those who do chiefly rely on Mid East oil get it. More importantly, my read here is that the populace wouldn’t have it after the recent excursions”

The U.S. doesn’t need to afford it. China would be happy to finance it by buying another trillion dollars worth of gov’t bonds. Then the U.S., via its SSN submarines; sinks any Iranian ships blockading the Strait of Hormuz; saving China the trouble of having to deal with the problem themselves. As for the U.S. populace; we can take Pres. Clinton’s approach to Bosnia-Herzegovina and send planes, missile frigates, and subs to deal with Iran and not many troops.

Continuing #24: “The better question might be what happens when another country determines that Iran has enough electricity and decides to do something on its own.”

By “another country” you mean Israel launching a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities the way they did in 1981 against Iraq’s Osirak reactor. Yes that could happen, and then we’d have to see what the Iranian response would be. If war starts; the U.S. would inevitably be drawn in.

Re Post #33: “All eyes on Syria and this talk of Sarin. ...Obama had said it was a ‘red line,’ and the GOP is frothing at the mouth for action.”

We’re already sending the Syrian insurgents humanitarian aid and soon we’ll be sending them military aid just like we did the Libyan insurgents. Assad's days are numbered. What's the U.S. interest in Syria? Assad allows Hezbollah more-or-less free rein in Syria. If the U.S. assists the insurgents in overthrowing Assad we could then use this influence to get Hezbollah banned from Syria. Iran heavily subsidizes Hezbollah - they're practically a branch of the Iranian gov't. Iran may take retaliatory action against the U.S. for banning Hezbollah. Then what? War?

Re Post #35: “A war against Iran will never happen. It's in neither state's interest”

There are a lot of people in the Middle East - not the least Israel - who don’t want to see those suicide-bombing mullahs getting their hands on a nuclear bomb.

Continuing #35: “The Iranian government would be...destroyed by U.S. military and the U.S. will go into a depression because Iran will block the oil supply.”

Yes the Iranian religious gov’t would be wiped out. However any attempt by Iran to block the flow of oil through the Strait would fail as the U.S. would sink their ships using our submarines.

Guys; something you might do sometime - do you have Google Earth on your computer? Start it up. In the search box type “Diego Garcia Island.” When it comes up click on it. It’s an island owned by the Brits but the U.S. leases it from them. Zoom in close on it. What do you see there on the airstrip? B-52 bombers. From there we can carpet-bomb any target in the Middle East. Iran doesn’t stand a chance - no troops needed.

I wasn't going to do this but I changed my mind:

Re Post #26: "As far as terrorist acts are concerned, and responsibility for them, how about the US responsibility for shooting down an Iranian Airliner in 1988? The Captain of USS Vincennes was subsequently decorated, which didn't help the situation...."

Chouan y'know; whose side are you on anyway? Never mind it's a rhetorical question.


----------



## Canadian (Jan 17, 2008)

One has forgotten a critical factor. If America goes into war with Iran, it will be Canadian troops on the ground. The whole idea of a soldierless war is a fiction. As the son of an infantry officer (and the grandson of a rifle regiment commander) I know that wars are not won by smart bombs or missiles. They will be won by persons who fight on the ground.

In Gulf War I, we saw the SAS zipping around the desert in jeeps. The SAS laid laser target markers so your American air force could target Scuds. Despite being clearly superior in the air, it is up to infantry and JTF/SAS/Special Forces to do the ground game. Special forces may have the ability to direct a missile, just as an forward observation artillery officer might, but it is up to the infantry to do it.

I don't doubt Obama would sell it as a soldierless war. But I also don't doubt that he'd ask British, Canadian, French, German and maybe, maybe, Israeli troops to die on the ground in firefights with an Iranian force.

​Tom


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Canadian said:


> One has forgotten a critical factor. If America goes into war with Iran, it will be Canadian troops on the ground. The whole idea of a soldierless war is a fiction. As the son of an infantry officer (and the grandson of a rifle regiment commander) I know that wars are not won by smart bombs or missiles. They will be won by persons who fight on the ground.
> 
> In Gulf War I, we saw the SAS zipping around the desert in jeeps. The SAS laid laser target markers so your American air force could target Scuds. Despite being clearly superior in the air, it is up to infantry and JTF/SAS/Special Forces to do the ground game. Special forces may have the ability to direct a missile, just as an forward observation artillery officer might, but it is up to the infantry to do it.
> 
> ...


Oh I didn't mean there would be no troops at all - just not many. A few thousands instead of half-a-million.


----------



## Canadian (Jan 17, 2008)

I suspect Obama and his Joint Chiefs would sit down. First they call Canada, "Mr. Harper, how many regiments can you contribute if there was an action with Iraq". Then the Germans, the French, etc. No sane person who claims to act on the behalf of the coalition of the willing would enter a state of war without direct commitments to what other countries would bring. 

Remember, in the Falklands, they ran out of Exocet missiles quickly and had to borrow from the Canadians and French. No country can go it alone, even the mighty Americans. No matter how many smart bombs they drop, they need every soul on the ground that they can provide. 

Is a Canadian life worth the same as an American life? I have fraternity brothers who are serving abroad. They don't get a choice as to whether or not they go. I suspect many of the academics and theorists who claim that American lives are not being risked are either too old or exempt from military service.

I have nothing against any member of this forum. Just remember it wouldn't be purely a fast air war. My father taught me that the difference between a police force and an army is that a police force brings "sufficient" force, while an army brings, "overwhelming" force.

I'd gladly hop in my jeep (although I don't think a civvy jeep has much place in a war) and zip around Persia and mark targets. Unfortunately, special forces don't generally recruit 240lb 6 foot 4 people, even if I can cover 15 miles on a good day in the desert on foot and am a crack shot with a rifle. If called to defend Canada and our allies, you bet I'd be in line at the recruiting station.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Regillus said:


> Re Post #33: "All eyes on Syria and this talk of Sarin. ...Obama had said it was a 'red line,' and the GOP is frothing at the mouth for action."
> 
> .... Assad allows Hezbollah more-or-less free rein in Syria. If the U.S. assists the insurgents in overthrowing Assad we could then use this influence to get Hezbollah banned from Syria. Iran heavily subsidizes Hezbollah - they're practically a branch of the Iranian gov't. Iran may take retaliatory action against the U.S. for banning Hezbollah. Then what? War?


There's about zero chance that any aid the US or any other Western nation gives to the Syrian insurgency at this entirely too late stage will buy the influence needed to dictate anything much at all after Assad is gone. The conflict is now more than two years old and for the first eighteen months we did nothing at all; eighteen months which allowed jihadists and other religious elements to gradually infiltrate and subvert the insurgency as Syrians grew ever more disillusioned with the West. By now there's every chance that the post-war Syrian government will be dominated by islamists who'll be more than happy to continue supporting Hezb'allah and any other anti-Western, anti-Israeli forces present. All because standing by and watching insurgents and civilians alike be slaughtered was preferable to upsetting Russia and China, neither of whom understandably wanted to see another fellow dictatorship toppled.



> Re Post #35: "A war against Iran will never happen. It's in neither state's interest"
> 
> There are a lot of people in the Middle East - not the least Israel - who don't want to see those suicide-bombing mullahs getting their hands on a nuclear bomb.
> 
> ...


The question isn't whether or not Iran can win, or close the Hormuz for a long time - neither is possible. The question is what damage Iran can do to the oil fields of the region - all of which are within easy reach - before it is forced to submit. The answer to that is *a lot* and that is what could wreak havoc with the world economy in the aftermath of a war. Apart from Iraq, which the US invasion so successfully transformed from an enemy of Iran into a de facto Iranian province, every other Gulf state is a more or less overt enemy, so Iran would have little compunction to hold back.



> Chouan y'know; whose side are you on anyway? Never mind it's a rhetorical question.


What is it with the US and this absurd "you're either with us 110%, or you're with the enemy 100%!" mentality?


----------

