Iran Assessment

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
The only "national identity" that the Iraqis have is that the best way to get into power is to use violence.

[/ QUOTE ]Please bear in mind that nothing brings various ethnic strains within a country together more potently than an outside threat. This has happened time and again throughout History.

Remember the Iraq-Iran war? The tensions between Shias and Sunnis in Iraq practically disappeared overnight and a stronger Iraqi national identity was forged, simply by having a common enemy, i.e. "the Persians". Famously, some of the bravest war heroes were Shia Iraqis, fighting against their Iranian co-believers like mad. (One of them, has been recently given the task by the Iraqi government to clean up Baghdad from "terrorists" - and that includes the Shia militias.)

What I'm saying is that, besides creating out of nowhere a veritable terrorist recruiting & training haven in Iraq, the American presence also provides the various groups with a common enemy, a unifying cause. Shias and Sunnis are killing each other but they both kill Americans.

Those boys are dying for a united Iraq, if you think about it.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. how likely people think it is that Iran would attack our naval assets in this scenario, given the likelihood of a devastating response

and

2. our actual preparedness for such an attack

i personally don't think the iranian regime is as crazy as they are made out to be in the US media. however i don't know what THEY think about their ability to attack US Naval assets and withstand the response, or what their intelligence is regarding our capabilities in the region.

[/ QUOTE ]

If hostilities break out between Iran and the US they will make every attempt possible to destroy the US Navy in the gulf.

If Iran believes a full scale invasion is imminent they will pre-emptively strike the US Navy.

If Isreal bombs Iran, Iran will retaliate against the US asymmeticrally. There response will be carefully measured however.

The US navy is not going to place key Naval assets in a position where the Iranians can strike them

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your other two conclusions, but I'm wondering about:

"If Iran believes a full scale invasion is imminent they will pre-emptively strike the US Navy."

The way I see things, the only way for Iran to have any chance of coming out on top of this situation, would be for them to get the Shi'a to Rise Up Against the U.S. in Iraq. If they strike first, I really can't see them not calling for a Shi'a uprising in Iraq. And I'm not sure if putting the U.S. on "kill mode" works in this situation. When U.S. soldiers are being killed or attacked in masse, collateral (non-U.S. civilians) damage doesn't factor into any strategy I've ever seen. I'm just figuring when you own the sky like we do, and with our armored divisions over there… like they say, "the thunder rolls and the lightning strikes." And I can't see that scenario playing out to Iran's benefit.

" If Isreal bombs Iran, Iran will retaliate against the US asymmeticrally. There response will be carefully measured however."

This is a possibility. But it's going to ultimately be contingent on Iran giving full access to their nuclear program in the same way that Iraq did after Gulf I. But it's going to take Iran ultimately asking for cessation. I just don't know on this one.

[boracay]

the questions are:
1. why someone wants this war so much right now? (experts believe iran won't be capable of making nukes in at least 5 or most probably 10 years). so why now (until summer 2008) when it is enough time to put additional pressure, when their regime might change, etc. wouldn't it be worth waiting since there is no real nuclear threat at present time?

2. expecting nothing less than total war from iran in case of nuclear attack is unreal. including biological/chemical weapons, attacking all possible ally targets, trying to destabilise the whole region, etc. whoever thinks otherwise should think again.

3. how possible it is that this war could provoke much bigger threat - a revolution is pakistan? it's unstable at present time already, that's where major terrorist groups come from. iraq or even 40 mio iran are piece of cake compared with 170 mio pakistan with nukes in their arsenal.

4. how many lives of americans is US public (i'm not saying generals here) willing to accept for another war? would it be 10 times higher than in iraq enough? 30 times more? not to mention expenses (war in iraq will cost 1-2 trillion $). will 10 times more be enough?

5. will ignore the worlds opnion on another unnecessary war (when there is no nuke threat at least at present time) here probable following another arming race, raising extremism everywhere, unstabilising nowadays 'democratic' muslim countries, gaining power of other dictators like chavez, impacts on US economy, etc.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
i personally don't think the iranian regime is as crazy as they are made out to be in the US media.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is, "crazy" as defined within our Western, liberal, secular society. If the Iranian regime truly believes in Shi'ite eschatology, though, then its actions are eminently rational from that viewpoint.

[nineinchal]

It's cheap at $29 and change

[utula]

[ QUOTE ]
So to me it all comes down to who Ahmadinejad really is. The next time you see him on TV - take a good look at him and ask yourself if he thinks he's Napoleon, or not. If he does, and the Iranian people don't stop him, then we'll probably have to. My gut feeling on him is - he thinks he's the Great One. My gut feeling on the Iranian people is - they'll stop him. Unlike what's happening in Iraq, the Iranians have experienced peace and prosperity (pre-Shah) and it's in their minds. I'm hoping they want it back.

[/ QUOTE ]
President Ahmadinejad isn't the leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is. Khamenei and others aren't happy with how Ahmadinejad has handled the nuclear issue and Iran's economy and the president's position isn't very strong at the moment.
The Guardian, January 25, 2007

[casey_brick]

" If Isreal bombs Iran, Iran will retaliate against the US asymmeticrally. There response will be carefully measured however."

Its not a matter of if but when Isreal bombs Iran. They destroyed Iraqs nuclear program. They wont allow an enemy arab nation to have the bomb.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a possibility. But it's going to ultimately be contingent on Iran giving full access to their nuclear program in the same way that Iraq did after Gulf I. But it's going to take Iran ultimately asking for cessation. I just don't know on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Iranians signed the IAEA and El-Baradei has stated that they have had full access to every site they have asked to inspect.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is a possibility. But it's going to ultimately be contingent on Iran giving full access to their nuclear program in the same way that Iraq did after Gulf I. But it's going to take Iran ultimately asking for cessation. I just don't know on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Iranians signed the IAEA and El-Baradei has stated that they have had full access to every site they have asked to inspect.

[/ QUOTE ]

If IAEE access hasn't been denied very recently (don't remember), it probably won't with full access continue next month when Iran ramps up its announced production of centrifuges. Wish I had the link but first few searches failed to turn it up.

Also, didn't Iran conceal its nuclear program for many years?

[livecards]

The following link will identify the problems the U.N. has with Iran's nuclear program:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...lution1737.pdf