Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why Iran will lead to WW3

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Pharaoh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 10:22 AM
Original message
Why Iran will lead to WW3
If Iran retaliates against Israel or the US in Iraq, then both nations will proceed with a plan that is already in place to destroy all of Iran's biological, chemical and conventional weapons sites. In fact, this is the ultimate US strategy anyway; not the elimination of the "imaginary" nuclear weapons facilities. Both the US and Israel want to "de-fang" the Mullah-regime so that they can control critical resources and eliminate the possibility of a regional rival in the future.

In the short term, however, the plan is fraught with difficulties. At present, there is no wiggle room in the world's oil supply for massive disruptions and most experts are predicting shortages in the 4th quarter of this year. If the administration's war on Iran goes forward we will see a shock to the world's oil supplies and economies that could be catastrophic. That being the case, a report that was leaked last week that Dick Cheney had STRATCOM (Strategic Command) draw up "contingency plans for a tactical nuclear war against Iran", is probably a bit of brinksmanship intended to dissuade Iran from striking back and escalating the conflict.

It makes no difference. If Iran is attacked they will retaliate; that much is certain.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WHI20050809&articleId=825

:dem: :dem: :dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
reelcobra Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. Iran retaliates for Iraq? Huh?
Iran is thrilled the US went into Iraq. We took out their old enemy and now they can spread their influence along with Al Qaeda, Hizbullah, and other proxies/friends/clients.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. I believe you read that wrong
Iran could easily further destabilize Iraq and increase attacks against U.S. forces by funding the insurgency.

By further bogging down the U.S. in Iraq, it will make it harder for the U.S. to respond to any Iran retaliations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #1
15. I think that the sentence means
that if after an Israeli or USA airstrike against Iran, Iran retaliates against american forces in Iraq or lobs a missile or two at Israel, that we will respond with a massive and perhaps nuclear attack against Iraq.

Most likely Iran will simply use its air defense system to protect its hardened underground facilities, frustrating our attempts to destroy these facilities, and not respond directly by attacking Israel or our forces in Iraq. Hitting Israel would be difficult, they do however have the capability to hit Baghdad.

They will almost certainly shut off oil shipments to countries that support our aggression or perhaps shut their oil exports down completely in order to retaliate on an economic level. They also might play their Iraqi card, which is pretty strong, not by directly attacking our forces, but by causing serious disorder in Iraq through the shiite militias. We saw a taste of that a year ago, and it wasn't pretty. A saigon airlift moment could happen in a flash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Yossarian Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
2. We have already started WWIII
Thanks, George.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
3. A bit more from that piece....... pretty powerful stuff
The facts about Iran's "alleged" nuclear weapons program have never been in dispute. There is no such program and no one has ever produced a shred of credible evidence to the contrary. That hasn't stopped the Bush administration from making spurious accusations and threats; nor has it deterred America's "imbedded" media from implying that Iran is hiding a nuclear weapons program from the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). In fact, the media routinely features the unconfirmed claims of members of terrorist organizations, like the Mujahedin Klaq, (which is on the State Depts. list of terrorist organizations) to make it appear that Iran is secretively developing nuclear arms. These claims have proved to be entirely baseless and should be dismissed as just another part of Washington's propaganda war.

Iran has no nuclear weapons program. This is the conclusion of Mohammed el-Baradei the respected chief of the IAEA. The agency has conducted a thorough and nearly-continuous investigation on all suspected sites for the last two years and has come up with the very same result every time; nothing. If we can't trust the findings of these comprehensive investigations by nuclear experts than the agency should be shut down and the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) should be abandoned. It is just that simple.

<snip>

The US is also the only nation that claims the right to use nukes in a "first-strike" capacity if it feels that its national security interests are at stake.

<snip>

Iran has shown an unwillingness to be bullied by Washington. The Bush administration has co-opted the EU to enforce its double-standards by threatening military action, but that doesn't' conceal the duplicity of their demands. Why should Iran forgo the processing of nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes if it is written right into the treaty? Would Israel or Pakistan accept a similar proposal? 

Of course, not. Both countries ignored the treaty altogether and built their own nuclear weapons behind the back of the international community. Only Iran has been singled out and punished for COMPLYING with the treaty. This demonstrates the power of Washington to dictate the international agenda. 
<snip

It is always the mistake of extremists to misjudge the behavior of reasonable men; just as it is always the mistake of reasonable men to mistake the behavior of extremists. 

We should not expect the Bush administration to make a rational choice; that would be a dramatic departure from every preceding decision of consequence. 

The President of the United States always has the option of unleashing Armageddon if he so chooses. Normally, however, sanity prevails. 


When the bombs hit the bunkers in Iran; World War 3 will be underway.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. the mistake of reasonable men to mistake the behavior of extremists
just as it is always the mistake of reasonable men to mistake the behavior of extremists.

Who is saying that they (bush & other idiots) are reasonable men?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. exactly the point being made
It is a warning for reasonable people around the world not to expect reasonable behavior from the likes of Bush* and Cabal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #3
18. So, given the documented proof in this article,
... and the 20/20 hindsight that so many in The House and Senate seemed to have gained since the 2003 IWR Resolution, if ANY ONE OF THE DEMS vote 'yea' on I(ran)WR2, they oughta be recalled. Immediately.

There is NO excuse this time for voting to give * authority to do SQUAT re:Iran.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PerceptionManagement Donating Member (226 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
4. How would Iran retaliate?
What could they do? Attack Afghanistan? Iraq? No, they'd take the beating and be humiliated. I believe Israel has previously done so if memory serves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Iran's military is modernized and capable
Do some research on Iran's military capabilities.

They can destroy Israel if they choose to.

Then there's the support for Hamas Iran gives. They can unleash Hamas in Israel and make it look like Iraq with daily bombings and assassinations.

Anyone who discounts Iran's ability to retaliate is either ignorant or a fool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #5
22. Iran has no capability to destroy Israel.
They might get a missile or two to hit a target and that is it. There is no 'Hamas in Israel', where did you get that from?

Iran can probably hold its own defensively against USA/Israeli conventional airstrikes, and could probably cause us serious but indirect trouble in Iraq through the shiite militia organizations in Iraq.

I think the first round in this war will be inconclusive. We will conduct airstrikes which we will pronounce devastatingly effective; they might knock out a few of our planes, and they will get to pronounce us as suffering a humiliating defeat. In reality whatever damage we do will be quickly repaired. Iran will hold off playing its Iraq card. The Cabal will take the political pulse to see if they have gotten an election-reframing boost out of their belligerence, and then it will be on to round two, which will likely be more of the same.

In a prolonged conventional airwar, as long as Iran can be resupplied by China and Russia, we will lose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Your knowledge of the area seems quite limited
Also of Iran's defense capabilities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IDemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. What could they do? Read ===>>>
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010906I.shtml

Iran's Armaments

Unlike Iraq, Iran has not spent the last fifteen years having its conventional forces worn down by grueling sanctions, repeated attacks, and two American-led wars. While Iran's conventional army is not what it was during the heyday of the Iran-Iraq war - their armaments have deteriorated and the veterans of that last war have retired - the nation enjoys substantial military strength nonetheless.

According to a report issued by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in December of 2004, Iran "has some 540,000 men under arms and over 350,000 reserves. They include 120,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards trained for land and naval asymmetrical warfare. Iran's military also includes holdings of 1,613 main battle tanks, 21,600 other armored fighting vehicles, 3,200 artillery weapons, 306 combat aircraft, 60 attack helicopters, 3 submarines, 59 surface combatants, and 10 amphibious ships."

"Iran is now the only regional military power that poses a significant conventional military threat to Gulf stability," continued the CSIS report. "Iran has significant capabilities for asymmetric warfare, and poses the additional threat of proliferation. There is considerable evidence that it is developing both a long-range missile force and a range of weapons of mass destruction. It has never properly declared its holdings of chemical weapons, and the status of its biological weapons programs is unknown."

A MILNET brief issued in February 2005 reports, "Due to its position astride the Persian Gulf, Iran has constantly been a threat to the Gulf. The so called 'Tanker' wars in the late 1980s put Iran squarely in the bullseye of all nations seeking to transport oil out of the region. Even the small navy that Iran puts to sea is capable enough to harass shipping, and several cases of small boat operations against oil well heads in the Gulf during that period made it clear small asymmetrical tactics of the Iranian Navy could be quite effective."

"More concerning," continued the MILNET brief, "is the priority placed on expanding and modernizing its Navy. The CSIS report cites numerous areas where Iran has funded modernization including the most troublesome aspect, anti-shipping cruise missiles: 'Iran has obtained new anti-ship missiles and missile patrol craft from China, midget submarines from North Korea, submarines from Russia, and modern mines.'"

It is Iran's missile armaments that pose the greatest concern for American forces in the Gulf, especially for the US Navy. Iran's coast facing the Persian Gulf is a looming wall of mountains that look down upon any naval forces arrayed in those waters. The Gulf itself only has one exit, the Strait of Hormuz, which is also dominated by the mountainous Iranian coastline. In essence, Iran holds the high ground in the Gulf. Missile batteries arrayed in those mountains could raise bloody havoc with any fleet deployed below.

Of all the missiles in Iran's armament, the most dangerous is the Russian-made SS-N-22 Sunburn. These missiles are, simply, the fastest anti-ship weapons on the planet. The Sunburn can reach Mach 3 at high altitude. Its maximum low-altitude speed is Mach 2.2, some three times faster than the American-made Harpoon. The Sunburn takes two short minutes to cover its full range. The missile's manufacturers state that one or two missiles could cripple a destroyer, and five missiles could sink a 20,000 ton ship. The Sunburn is also superior to the Exocet missile. Recall that it was two Exocets that ripped the USS Stark to shreds in 1987, killing 37 sailors. The Stark could not see them to stop them.

The US aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt is currently deployed in the Persian Gulf, with some 7,000 souls aboard. Sailing with the Roosevelt is the Tarawa Expeditionary Strike Force, which includes the USS Tarawa, the USS Austin, and the USS Pearl Harbor. The USS Austin is likewise deployed in the Gulf. The Sunburn missile, with its incredible speed and ability to avoid radar detection, would do terrible damage these ships if Iran chooses to retaliate in the Gulf after an American attack within its borders.

Beyond the naval threat is the possibility of Iran throwing its military muscle into the ongoing struggle in Iraq. Currently, the US is facing an asymmetrical attack from groups wielding small arms, shoulder-fired grenades and roadside bombs. The vaunted American military has suffered 2,210 deaths and tens of thousands of wounded from this form of warfare. The occupation of Iraq has become a guerrilla war, a siege that has lasted more than a thousand days. If Iran decides to throw any or all of its 23,000 armored fighting vehicles, along with any or all of its nearly million-strong army, into the Iraq fray, the situation in the Middle East could become unspeakably dire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stella_Artois Donating Member (838 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. There are some problems with that article
Stark could see the Exocets, and would have had the means to destroy them but for an equipment failure that was known about before she left port.

"Beyond the naval threat is the possibility of Iran throwing its military muscle into the ongoing struggle in Iraq. Currently, the US is facing an asymmetrical attack from groups wielding small arms, shoulder-fired grenades and roadside bombs. The vaunted American military has suffered 2,210 deaths and tens of thousands of wounded from this form of warfare. The occupation of Iraq has become a guerrilla war, a siege that has lasted more than a thousand days. If Iran decides to throw any or all of its 23,000 armored fighting vehicles, along with any or all of its nearly million-strong army, into the Iraq fray, the situation in the Middle East could become unspeakably dire."

If Iran decides to throw any or all of its 23,000 armored fighting vehicles, along with any or all of its nearly million-strong army, into the Iraq fray the result will be a lot of scrap iron. Iran has as much chance of defeating the US in a conventional war as Iraq did in 1991. They know that, and thats why its not going to happen. Thats why they would be sensible to publically obtain nuclear weapons as soon as possible. Once that happens they are untouchable, like the DPRK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heewack Donating Member (297 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Very true.
Those armored vehicles wouldn't make it to the border before they were carpet bombed.

I think the vision of WW3 is a large leap of sensationalism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PAdem2 Donating Member (78 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. But...they've got 10 amphibious vehicles!!!
We'd better give up now!!! No, Iran's continued support of the Iraq insurgency and public nuclear weapons program is the best way they can see to proceed right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. ... all they need is one jet with one nuke ..
... which can bypass the DC defenses and ... it's on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. Might be interesting in that they also have several hundred aircraft
I remember reading a while back in training exercises an Indian pilot out gunned American pilots at every encounter. Maybe the Iranians are not as well trained as the Indian Air Force but they fly the same aircraft and will inflict some casualties and provide some escort service. It would certainly change the dynamics because our guys would still have to be on guard from Insurgent activity which would intensify.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noahmijo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #9
19. One very imporant fact is being disregarded in this
What of the fact that the majority of Iranians HATE the ruling Mullahs? that's one of the main reasons why I think invading Iran would be stupid. It'd be one thing to pledge assistance should the people have a real revolt and attempt to overthrow the ruling mullahs, but to go in and just outright invade would turn would be allies against American forces.


Put simply we all hate Bush here, but if out of nowhere islamic extremists began parachuting into your backyards trying to hold up your families bombing everything you'd fight them too, not because you are loyal to your government or country but because you despise violent tresspassers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #19
24. That may be
but the majority of Iranians also appear to hate us far more than they hate the theocracy. One of the blowback effects of our Iraqi Blunder was in fact to destroy the political opposition in Iran and consolidate support for the theocracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Not to mention that a lot of Iranians
remember the excesses of the Shah (and the fact that the US installed him after overthrowing their democratically-elected leader), especially the Shah's use of the Iranian Secret Police to torture, maim, and kill ordinary citizens.

The hatred Iranians feel for the US Government runs deep, therefore the opposition in Iran would never side with the US over their own crazy-ass rulers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heewack Donating Member (297 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #19
26. Yes.
"What of the fact that the majority of Iranians HATE the ruling Mullahs? that's one of the main reasons why I think invading Iran would be stupid. It'd be one thing to pledge assistance should the people have a real revolt and attempt to overthrow the ruling mullahs, but to go in and just outright invade would turn would be allies against American forces."

100% correct. No way in hell do you invade Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. GW and Cheney..... two brilliant military tacticians..... nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rustydad Donating Member (753 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #4
25. Look
At the very least Iran, if attacked by the US and/or Israel, can choose to limit their oil exports. They export over 4 million barrels a day. The world uses 85+ million barrels a day which is just about all the capacity there is. If Iran stops exporting oil, oil will go to way over $100 a barrel, gas at over $5 a gallon, a serious depression in the US and around the world. Now if Iran decides to fire a few Sunburn anti ship missles at elements of the 5th fleet then things get hot fast. WWIII is a real possibility. Israel turned into molten sand is a likely reality. Bob
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heewack Donating Member (297 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. They need the money.
Right now Iran is at about 2.5 million barrels a day. If they limited production it would first hurt China since that's where most of their oil goes. While they claim to have missles that can reach Israel I doubt it would ever be allowed to go that far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rustydad Donating Member (753 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
27. Well....
At the very least Iran, if attacked by the US and/or Israel, can choose to limit their oil exports. They export over 4 million barrels a day. The world uses 85+ million barrels a day which is just about all the capacity there is. If Iran stops exporting oil, oil will go to way over $100 a barrel, gas at over $5 a gallon, a serious depression in the US and around the world. Now if Iran decides to fire a few Sunburn anti ship missles at elements of the 5th fleet then things get hot fast. WWIII is a real possibility. Israel turned into molten sand is a likely reality. Bob
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truth2power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
13. What is el Baradei's current position on this?
This article is from 2005. It says, "Iran has no nuclear weapons program. This is the conclusion of Mohammed el-Baradei the respected chief of the IAEA."

However, I've been hearing things in the broadcast media recently, saying that el Baradei is greatly concerned about Iran's nuclear capability. Just trying to separate facts from propaganda.

In any case, I'm not opposed to Iran's seeking nuclear military capability. Unfortunately, in the world that Bush has created, unless a country engages in a policy of mutually assured destruction they will certainly be targeted for the Bush Empire's agressive wars. :cry:

Bush is responsible for this state of affairs. May he burn in hell!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
21. just preemptively attacking iran
will do more for terrorist organizations than just about any other single event.

it will not help shiite moderates and liberals.

the world will be beyond any thing we might label od descraibe as ''destabilized''.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qanda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
23. How will the religious powers in Iraq react if we bomb Iran?
Wouldn't that cause a real conflict with the new Iraqi government?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ckramer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
29. Do you guys think WWWIII will end the housing bubble? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pharaoh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Ha Ha Ha!!
yes I think that would be a safe assumtion...........

:dem: :dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pharaoh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. delete duplicate
Edited on Sat Jan-14-06 12:23 PM by Pharaoh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
33. Locking
This is a news analysis from last August and is not Latest Breaking News.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 07:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC