BF2S Forums Iran's Big Gamble

superfly_cox wrote:

I think we can all agree that Iran is fighting a proxy war with the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Iranian arms and expertise is finding its way into these areas and it is clearly supporting the insurgents against the US.  Also, incidents like the one with the British Sailors are orchestrated and very calculated.

The big miscalculation on Iran's part is that proxy wars are meant to be fought by superpowers with nuclear arsenals who could not otherwise engage in direct warfare because it would be too dangerous.  So they resort to supporting those fighting their enemy or their enemy's ally.  Vietnam and the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan are two examples.

The only problem is that Iran is not a nation that has any deterrents to prevent the US from attacking it.  The idea of it fighting a proxy war against the US is dangerous and will lead to the war which Bush really wants.  Of course Iran has the right to not approve of US intervention in the middle east but if it supports a course of action that leads to the deaths of US soldiers then the proxy war can become a conventional war.  This isn't about what is fair but about who is more powerful.  Add this to their nuclear weapons program and you got a very dangerous situation.  Make no mistake that many in the current US administration would love to see this happen, especially with elections around the corner.  This would be far easier because it would not be about occupation but rather about destroying Iran's communication, military and nuclear infrastructure and essentially crippling the current leadership's ability to rule.  And don't think that the US public wouldn't want a good ass kicking of Iran to cleanse the bitter taste.

The US has already failed in the Iraq War.  I supported it because I thought that a true democracy in the middle east could provide long term solutions in terms of bridging the gap of values that exist between the Euro-Atlantic Community and the Muslim world.  I was wrong.  I don't want a war with Iran but it seems they are doing everything in their power to assure that there will be one.

I am not writing this to exonerate the US from any responsibility it would have in an Iran war because I think that it would be wrong.  If they do nothing at the moment they win because the US has already lost.  However, Iran insists on playing a very dangerous game where the risks far outweigh the gains.

Is it Iran who have a large oil supply? and supply alot to the rest of the world?

CameronPoe wrote:

Even if they weren't fighting a proxy war with the US (which the jury is still very much out on Soup - even your Defence Minister said he didn't have any evidence to suggest that was the case) a case for war on Iran will be manufactured just like it was for Iraq. It's inevitable and it stinks. All the media blurb these days is demonising Iran and painting them as the bad guys when they're surrounded on all sides by a nation that wants it cut down to size for the good of a) Israel and b) oil. If I were Iran I'd be hatching plans like the captured British soldier plan: propaganda gold - Iranian captivity and treatment of POWs made Guantanamo Bay look like the seventh circle of hell.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/document_iran_c.html wrote:

The coalition analysis says munitions recovered in two Iranian convoys, on April 11 and May 3, had "clear indications that they originated in Iran. Some were identical to Iranian supplied goods previously discovered in Iraq."

The April convoy was tracked from Iran into Helmand province and led a fierce firefight that destroyed one vehicle, according to the official analysis. A second vehicle was reportedly found to contain small arms ammunition, mortar rounds and more than 650 pounds of C4 demolition charges.

A second convoy of two vehicles was spotted on May 3 and led to the capture of five occupants and the seizure of RPG-7mm rockets and more than 1,000 pounds of C4, the analysis says.

Also among the munitions are components for the lethal EFPs, or explosive formed projectiles, the roadside bombs that U.S. officials say Iran has provided to Iraqi insurgents with deadly results.

Let's be serious.  Do we think that roadside bombs capable of penetrating heavy armor are really just improvised artillery shells made by a rag tag team of untrained specialists.  All the independent military analysts and experts conclude that Iran is providing equipment and training for these things.  The US is not coming out and saying this officially because MoD Gates is one of the few in the administration who supports a dialog with Iran, but at this point we can't say that the insurgency is only the remnants of Iraq military depots.

And regarding fabricated motives:

• Nobody made their president call for the elimination of Israel
• Nobody made them provide support to Taliban and Militants
• Nobody made them take British Soldiers prisoners outside of their territorial waters
• Nobody made them begin enriching Uranium

I don't want this war.  I do not support Israel and see them as an unnecessary ally for the US which brings nothing of value to the strategic alliance.  I don't care that Iran supplies Hezbollah.  I have a great deal of respect for Iranian culture and history but think that the current administration is dangerous and --> and they're playing a game of Russian roulette.

There are people who want to avert war with Iran including the minister of defense Robert Gates who co-authored: "Iran: Time for a New Approach"

Iran: Time for a New Approach wrote:

Overview

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have positioned American troops along Iran’s borders, making the United States and Iran wary competitors and neighbors who nonetheless possess overlapping interests. Meanwhile, questions continue to be raised about Iran’s nuclear program and its involvement with terrorism. Clearly, contending with Iran will constitute one of the most complex and pressing challenges facing future U.S. administrations. This informative report, which sparked sharp debate in Washington and extensive coverage by U.S. and international media, offers a timely new approach.

Rejecting the conventional wisdom that Iran is on the verge of another revolution, the report calls for the United States to reassess its long-standing policy of non-engagement with the current Iranian government. The product of an independent Task Force chaired by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security adviser, and Robert M. Gates, director of central intelligence during the George H.W. Bush administration, the report highlights several areas in which U.S. interests would be better served by selective engagement with Tehran, and breaks with current U.S. policy by encouraging a new strategy.

If the anti-war community (of which i'm a part of this time) continues to completely absolve Iran of any responsibility for their actions then moderate points of view (like Gates) will never become powerful enough to dictate policy.  Go ahead and criticize the Bush Administration but don't bury your head in the sand as far as what Iran is doing.

Varegg wrote:

You must understand superfly my friend that if Iran shows any kind of weakness against the western "coalition" it will be prey for other countries in the region - same goes of course for Iraq before the invasion, all countries in that region is equally afraid of their neighbours as they are afraid of the US.

So Iran is at a modus vivendi (if i remember my latin) where they have no choice but to act as they do and i believe the US experts on Iran have advised their president well on this scenario.

Yeah Riiiiight! Bush listens to advisors (non divine)? thanks for giving me a good laugh..

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2007-06-07 05:30:19)

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/document_iran_c.html wrote:

The coalition analysis says munitions recovered in two Iranian convoys, on April 11 and May 3, had "clear indications that they originated in Iran. Some were identical to Iranian supplied goods previously discovered in Iraq."

The April convoy was tracked from Iran into Helmand province and led a fierce firefight that destroyed one vehicle, according to the official analysis. A second vehicle was reportedly found to contain small arms ammunition, mortar rounds and more than 650 pounds of C4 demolition charges.

A second convoy of two vehicles was spotted on May 3 and led to the capture of five occupants and the seizure of RPG-7mm rockets and more than 1,000 pounds of C4, the analysis says.

Also among the munitions are components for the lethal EFPs, or explosive formed projectiles, the roadside bombs that U.S. officials say Iran has provided to Iraqi insurgents with deadly results.

That in no way links the Iranian government with supporting the armed insurgency in Iraq. Just because an Englishman kills a fellow Englishman in England with an American handgun does not mean the US government personally dispatched the gun to the killer. Your Defence Minister himself stated quite plainly that he had 'no evidence' linking the Iranian government to events in Iraq.

superfly_cox wrote:

Let's be serious.  Do we think that roadside bombs capable of penetrating heavy armor are really just improvised artillery shells made by a rag tag team of untrained specialists. All the independent military analysts and experts conclude that Iran is providing equipment and training for these things. The US is not coming out and saying this officially because MoD Gates is one of the few in the administration who supports a dialog with Iran, but at this point we can't say that the insurgency is only the remnants of Iraq military depots.

The IRA were a 'rag tag team' who, through their own experience, ingenuinity, improvisations and endeavours, became one of the most efficient and professional terrorists organisations on the surface of the planet earth. You don't give Iraqis enough credit. All manner of stunts were pulled and plans devised by the IRA that successfully beat British defences and killed British soldiers, a military that is supposedly one of the best in the world. I disagree with your cold definite stance on the 'Iran dabbling' issue. They should very definitely be eyed with deep suspicion but the jury, as I said, is very much not out as yet.

superfly_cox wrote:

And regarding fabricated motives:

• Nobody made their president call for the elimination of Israel
• Nobody made them provide support to Taliban and Militants
• Nobody made them take British Soldiers prisoners outside of their territorial waters
• Nobody made them begin enriching Uranium

Possible Arguments/Explanations
1. Nobody did. The fact that everyday all across the middle east the ordinary man on the street calls for the destruction of Israel should makee it no surprise that the odd leader in the middle east calls for its destruction, much like Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and Lebanon have in the past.
2. The Taliban are ideological enemies of Iran. I still don't buy your argument that the Taliban and the government of Iran are linked.
3. Them drifting into Iranian territorial waters would have necessitated action. Either that or they needed to win a propaganda coup to improve global public opinion of Iran, which, by and large, worked. No bags over heads, no orange jumpsuits, no beheadings. Tailored suits, table tennis and a handshake from the president is what they pretty much got.
4. They are enriching uranium as much on principle as they are for nuclear weapons development. To expect any nation, especially one with such a grandiose history as Persia/Iran to defer to nations who look down their nose at them is belittling, patronising and arrogant.

superfly_cox wrote:

I don't want this war.  I do not support Israel and see them as an unnecessary ally for the US which brings nothing of value to the strategic alliance.  I don't care that Iran supplies Hezbollah.  I have a great deal of respect for Iranian culture and history but think that the current administration is dangerous and --> and they're playing a game of Russian roulette.

There are people who want to avert war with Iran including the minister of defense Robert Gates who co-authored: "Iran: Time for a New Approach"

Iran: Time for a New Approach wrote:

Overview

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have positioned American troops along Iran’s borders, making the United States and Iran wary competitors and neighbors who nonetheless possess overlapping interests. Meanwhile, questions continue to be raised about Iran’s nuclear program and its involvement with terrorism. Clearly, contending with Iran will constitute one of the most complex and pressing challenges facing future U.S. administrations. This informative report, which sparked sharp debate in Washington and extensive coverage by U.S. and international media, offers a timely new approach.

Rejecting the conventional wisdom that Iran is on the verge of another revolution, the report calls for the United States to reassess its long-standing policy of non-engagement with the current Iranian government. The product of an independent Task Force chaired by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security adviser, and Robert M. Gates, director of central intelligence during the George H.W. Bush administration, the report highlights several areas in which U.S. interests would be better served by selective engagement with Tehran, and breaks with current U.S. policy by encouraging a new strategy.

If the anti-war community (of which i'm a part of this time) continues to completely absolve Iran of any responsibility for their actions then moderate points of view (like Gates) will never become powerful enough to dictate policy.  Go ahead and criticize the Bush Administration but don't bury your head in the sand as far as what Iran is doing.

Iran are certainly not trying to take over the world. That is one thing of which any right-minded person should be certain. People need to put things in perspective here. Iran weren't involved in 9/11. They weren't involved in any terror attacks on the US homeland. They don't harbour Al Qaeda or the Taliban. They're simply guilty of calling Israel out on its crimes (in a pretty stupid manner) and standing up for itself in the face of western pressures. The moment the US goes to war with Iran will be another dark day for mankind. It's plain to see that this is not 'the war on terror'. 'The War On Terror' is a joke at this stage. This is the 'War for Western Interests', plain and simple. I find it refreshing however that you aren't so pro-war this time, perhaps realising the errors of the Iraq debacle.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-06-07 06:00:16)

Varegg wrote:

Pakistan is more to blame for giving shelter to terrorists, i have yet to read or hear anything about Iran on this particular issue.

That's for sure.