BF2S Forums Why didn't they respond to the US, since it's only the US?

rammunition wrote:

America doesn't own the earth thats why, this "war on terror" is a war against opposition against U.S domination.

Source: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fM1zULp-26E

Yet the UK government and top military staff clearly refer to it as the 'war on terror' as well? I don't see why 'US domination' was responsible for what happened at 9/11 which triggered it. Only possible link is the US oil industry in Saudi Arabia, something strangely, that is authorised by the Saudis to boost their economy. If you dominate you don't wait for authorisation.

Pierre wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I have seen it elsewhere, but can't find the link for it. I do know (and you can easily Google) that the EU disagrees with the NIE on Iran.

You got me there: I have no clue what NIE stands for ( I'm just a civilian you know ).

National Intelligence Estimate.

Pierre wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ADM Mullen is stating the position of the government.
Do you have sources that show Bush (Cheney is irrelevant) "and others" have threatened Iran for the last 5+ years? We've been down this road in other threads. Bottomline: No, the US government has not threatened Iran with anything. Saying you won't take military options off the table is not threatening...it's negotiating without preconditions--something many on this forum seem to think needs to happen. So long as it's only Iran that has no preconditions, anyway.

I agree, to a certain extent. Where there has been no clear and actual threat from a US official, on the record, towards Iraq (as far as I can find) - if so, it would have been seen as a declaration of war - there have been however numerous disguised threats, including the military option. IMO, saying you won't take military options off the table is threatening while negotiating, but threatening nevertheless. And in this case you should not forget the big picture: the threat is coming from the world's only military superpower, who is already active in the region, and who is working closely together with Israel, with whom Iran has ... well, let's say 'not the best relations'. 

Also remember the media buildup before invading Iraq, countless messages from the PNAC and other 'institutions', generating a message of threats against Iraq. The same has been going on against Iran since 2003.

The threats against Iraq were overt and undisguised. We've beaten the "'no military options off the table' is a threat" thing to death. It's simply not. "No military options off the table" is quite a bit different than "you and your sons have 48 hours to leave the country or we start military actions against you". See the difference there?

Here's the big picture: The US, EU3, Russia, China and the IAEA have all told Iran that they have to change their behavior WRT their nuclear program. Both the US and France have said military options are not off the table...which is another way of saying they will not enter diplomatic negotiations with Iran from a self-induced weakened position. That ogrish superpower that is "working closely together with Israel" is probably the only reason Israel hasn't attacked Iran's nuke facilities already.

Pierre wrote:

FEOS wrote:

McCain's "bomb Iran" joke was just that...a joke. Jokes in front of an informal group at the VFW does not official US policy make.

C'mon FEOS, you know better then that. How would you feel if an Iranian presidential candidate would say, in the media, 'let's fly another plane into the White House' or 'let's have another 9/11'?  A joke? He showed his bad sense of humour in that case.

I'm not going to damn McCain's entire sense of humor based on one bad joke. But it was certainly an inappropriate joke (that, btw, goes back to the 1979 hostage crisis).

We don't have to worry about Iranian Presidential candidates saying shit like that...the one in office already does.

Pierre wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The only reason Iran hasn't been struck yet (not invaded...we'll get to that in a minute) is that the position of the US and EU (and Russia and China) is diplomacy first and foremost, with military action only as a last resort.

Well, according to the WP, the US policy has changed:

Washington Post wrote:

U.S. Policy on Iran Evolves Toward Diplomacy (Sept. 2006)
President Bush's speech Tuesday to the U.N. General Assembly showed how much that diplomatic calculation has changed in Bush's second term. With the United States ensnarled in an increasingly difficult campaign in Iraq, war is no longer a viable option. Instead, the administration is struggling with the difficult and messy business of diplomacy. That often means accommodating the interests and demands of other countries, even backtracking on what had been firm positions.

That's an overall change in the Administration's approach, not specific to Iran. The US engagement vis a vis Iran has been diplomatic from day one, just more direct recently due to the US still not having formal diplomatic ties with Iran (which appears to be changing).

Pierre wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Arab leaders concerned about Iran's nuclear program: http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/ … ar-program

I know: some people regard all Muslim countries the same, but there is a huge difference between e.g. Pakistan and Morocco, or Iran and Egypt. Politics, and it doesn't make things easier.

The point is that Iran's neighbors, most active economic partners (France, Germany, Russia, China), the UN (IAEA), the UK and the US all share the same concerns. It's not a "US only" show.

Pierre wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Now, as to your (and others') assertion that Iran will be "invaded"...

Military action does not equate to "invasion" (ie, troops on the ground a la Iraq). In the case of Iran, any military action at this point would be limited to air strikes to take out the nuclear facilities in question. That's hardly an "invasion".

I agree, for several reasons, mainly because the US has no longer the military capability to invade Iraq or any other country. Invasion means boots on the ground, and let's not forget Iran is larger then Iraq, with other terrain.
But think about the military, economical, political and environmental consequences even if the US would limit the operations to airstrikes: oil supply would stop, attacks on US facilities, etc.

Granted, we couldn't pull off an invasion of Iran without stripping troops from elsewhere, and we certainly couldn't sustain it once launched. But the objective isn't regime change (ie, invasion). The objective is stopping/eliminating/significantly delaying Iran's nuke program. That doesn't require boots on the ground.

True, airstrikes could trigger a fight in the Straits of Hormuz, because Iran would surely attempt to choke off oil coming out of the PG. They would get pounded by the US/UK/French navies at that point. But it would be extremely disruptive. Hence the diplomatic approach.

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Pierre wrote:

You got me there: I have no clue what NIE stands for ( I'm just a civilian you know ).

National Intelligence Estimate.

Northern Ireland Electricity

Ireland and the EU disagree on everything, though.

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Pierre wrote:

You got me there: I have no clue what NIE stands for ( I'm just a civilian you know ).

National Intelligence Estimate.

Northern Ireland Electricity

I knew that one!

As FEOS has said, as long as it is only about the nuclear technology, and not about regime change, no invasion of Iran will be necessary.
As long as the intel on the nuclear facilities is good, selected air strikes or SOCOM ops will be sufficient to throw back iran's nuclear ambitions for decades.
Would be much cheaper, too.

Unfortunately, Iran would probably view this as an act of war, and could retaliate by attacking US forces in Iraq, possibly leading to another Iran-Iraq war. So you'd probably be facing ground operations against Iranian forces anyway, even if you just intended to destroy the nulcear facilities.
Of course, it is also possible that Iran chickens out, and chooses not to retaliate in that scenario.

There are a lot of possible outcomes, and it will be up to the chief white house analysts to determine if it is worth to run the risk.

Personally, I wouldn't run the risk of conducting military operations in Iran. As Adm Mullen has said, the region is much too unstable already. If the US is dragged into a conflict with Iran, who knows what the ramnifications for Iraq would be.

on topic: the current talks are a combined effort of a number of nations. I guess Iran could have sent their answer to any of them, and simply chose the EU ( which then forwarded the reply to the rest of the group ). Doesn't really matter anyway, does it ? Their position remains unchanged.

Considering the speed at which the iranian nuclear program moves forward, it will be years before it reaches a point where nuclear arms can actually be manufactured. And even if they one day have a nuke, they'd be bombed back into the middle ages before they'd be able to put it on any kind of missile. The israelis won't let that happen.

I think the consequences of limited strikes against Iranian nuke facilities are, on the whole, considered less than the consequences of an Iran with a nuclear weapon. I don't think those strikes would be exclusively US, though. At a minimum, France and/or the UK would play a role in the Straits of Hormuz (and possibly the PG), I would think.

But it won't be any time soon. Saw on the news last night that our carrier group is moving out of the PG and into the Indian Ocean to provide more air support to Afghanistan ops. Can't imagine we'd hit Iran without at least one carrier group in the Gulf.