[Sp5]

Watch the media coverage of the Iran nuclear talks "deadline" over the next week. I predict a dramatic declared failure by Kerry and the Europeans and blaming of Iran for not totally capitulating. Facts will be false framed, like the "tons" of "enriched uranium" Iran allegedly has.

I think war with Iran is coming in some form, it may be more in the Libya or Syria style than the Iraq style. This is based on watching events and propaganda tells over the last few years, along with a little inside information.

One tell is the US Department of Justice's protection of an alleged non-profit group "United Against Nuclear Iran" in a civil lawsuit. http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/11/21...e-word.htm

Why is the US Government declaring a state secrets privilege in a lawsuit in which it is not a party?

Neocon war drums are beating:

National Review: Don't Extend the Iran Talks

"Regime change" in Iran is a goal of the "deep state" and will be pursued whether Obama, Hillary or Jeb Bush is president. Jim Webb or Rand Paul, maybe not.

I am against it, because it has the signs of being a Waterloo for the USA and NATO. The Iranians will not be easy to take down.

[Chaos]

Well I hope not.
I developed quite strong feelings for Iran and the Persian people during my time there.
The last thing that country need is a war with US.

It's two years since I was there, but at that time people often expressed their fear of a war with Israel.

I hope everyone chill out.

[zidhai89]

It is impossible for a war when the financial system is on the verge of a serious crisis with Japan having the capability to take everone down with them in light of Abenomics. Europe has no appetite as they chug along hoping to inject growth.

USA has a myriad of problems and quite frankly are bogged down picking fights with everyone ranging from Russia to a rag tag bunch of Islamist jihadists.

Your last point is excellent. They said then when Americans invaded Iraq the Iranians closely watched everything and their entire defense system is built to counter western strengths. You can also place a solid bet that any direct intervention will bring Hizballah to the party. Not going to be pretty at all.

It will probably never go beyond sanctions and intelligence warfare.

[Sp5]

(11-23-2014 04:57 AM)zidhai89 Wrote:  

It is impossible for a war when the financial system is on the verge of a serious crisis with Japan having the capability to take everone down with them in light of Abenomics. Europe has no appetite as they chug along hoping to inject growth.

USA has a myriad of problems and quite frankly are bogged down picking fights with everyone ranging from Russia to a rag tag bunch of Islamist jihadists.

Your last point is excellent. They said then when Americans invaded Iraq the Iranians closely watched everything and their entire defense system is built to counter western strengths. You can also place a solid bet that any direct intervention will bring Hizballah to the party. Not going to be pretty at all.

It will probably never go beyond sanctions and intelligence warfare.

Ah, I left out a point. The whole Syria regime-change thing is to take out an ally of Iran and isolate and destroy Hezbollah before attacking Iran.

Syria is just prepping for Iran.

[Praetor Lupus]

Oh God. Not this shit again.

[Spectrumwalker]

Who wants war with Iran? Why the Israelis and the Saudis of course. The cancers of American foreign policy. It always amazes me how the geopolitical narrative we're fed coupled with our actions in the Arab/Persian world, perfectly matches what Bin Laden's goals were. Iran is last on the list.

I smell a rat.

[VolandoVengoVolandoVoy]

1. There will be no war with Iran, because it does not make strategic sense to do so (no possibility of occupation, no possibility of doing anything more than delaying Iranian nuclear efforts, 100% probability of severe retaliation, and it would ironically reinforce the case for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons).
2. Iran will get a nuclear weapon, because it makes strategic sense to do so (if it isn't obvious why, consider the example of Ukraine, and how different its situation would be if it hadn't given up its nukes).
3. Iran would not use any limited nuclear arsenal in a first strike, it would face obliteration.
4. Iran would not give a nuclear weapon to a 3rd party for use in a terrorist attack, as it is rather easy to look at characteristics of a nuclear detonation and determine origin, and it would face obliteration.
5. What's really happening? Israel is a paranoid security state. It wants to be able to dictate the terms of political issues via overwhelming military force, and the ultimate threat of its nuclear arsenal. A nuclear armed Iran, which would not be subject to Israel's bullying, would afford considerable political strength and physical protection to Hizbollah, Hamas, Palestinians, etc.

[Tex Pro]

There won't be a war with Iran, at least as long as Obama is president.

Word on the street is they are going to look for a partial agreement on reducing Iran's uranium stockpile and extend the talks for another year or so.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-23...looms.html

[ChrisPitts]

Yes, let's have a war with Iran. Because more destabilizing influences to this region is what the world really needs.

As much as I hate to say it, a strong Iran is good for the Middle East. They are a stabilizing power, especially when surrounded on all sides by crazy. Let them saber rattle if it makes them feel powerful. Ultimately they are more use to the West strong, keeping the rest of the region from devolving into chaos.

[Rutting Elephant]

How would war with Iran not entail war with Russia?

[Andy_B]

There's no war with Iran coming. We didn't even go into Syria (against Assad I mean). If we won't even attack an Iranian proxy, what are the odds we attack Iran proper?

[Flint]

(11-23-2014 09:35 AM)Rutting Elephant Wrote:  

How would war with Iran not entail war with Russia?

Because Russia and Iran are not best friends, but strategic partners on some issues at best. Putin's the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend-logic may in this moment push him more toward Tehran, but I don't see why Russia would side with Iran in case of war. They have nothing to gain in that scenario, and the Persian lands are not within Russia's traditional sphere of influence.

I don't believe the US or Israel will eventually attack Iran. The Americans don't want it, the IDF is not capable to do it.

[Vaun]

A war with Iran is a war with Russia. This is saber rattling, especially lately given Russia's aggressive patrols in international waters. Neo cons are driven by one thing, corporate interests, and they couch it in patriotism that Foxnews watchers buy hook, line and sinker.

[HighSpeed_LowDrag]

(11-23-2014 10:47 AM)Flint Wrote:  

I don't believe the US or Israel will eventually attack Iran. The Americans don't want it, the IDF is not capable to do it.

Agree on the point about the Americans, but I disagree on the question of Israel's capability. There have been enough times where people underestimated the capabilites of the IDF (to their detriment) to think otherwise.

[Foolsgo1d]

Yet more reason why there should be actual checks on power of politicians and their backers. The man and woman in the street do not go to war with countries such as Syria, Iran, Russia and the like. Only paranoid profit-driven bastards in power do.

In order for normal folk to get behind and men to join up they need to frighten the populace into recognising some threat to their lives.

It doesn't help that fanatical Jihad warriors make it easier to swallow by their endless bloodlust. All they have to do is link Iran with some form of Jihad and the West "wins".

[Sonsowey]

Iran is right between Iraq and Afghanistan. Both of their neighbors have been completely destroyed by chaos following U.S. invasion. They must be terrified of the U.S. invading, considering we have been talking about it openly for around ten years now.

Obviously these wars do not help anyone. Libya is in chaos. Syria is in chaos. Iraq and Afghanistan are in chaos. All of these countries are without doubt far worse off than before the U.S. decided to invade or bomb.

Iran right now is a peaceful country. Their murder rate is about equal with the U.S. they have a pretty high HDI for their region. Their government is a lot more "democratic" and has lot more respect for human rights than, say, Saudi Arabia.

Yet most Americans I talk to see to think Iranians are basically savages living in mud huts. My impression is that they are by far the best country in the region for women's rights and generally being free to do as you will.

We seem pretty determined to destroy them though. Very sad. I do not know if they are truly building nuclear weapons, but if so, it seems only logical for them to want to defend themselves after watching what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.

Surely they have noted that North Korea has not been "liberated".

[Rutting Elephant]

Iran is full of heroin addicts. It is possible that US intel has been waging war quietly there for many years.

[Sp5]

(11-23-2014 07:25 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

1. There will be no war with Iran, because it does not make strategic sense to do so (no possibility of occupation, no possibility of doing anything more than delaying Iranian nuclear efforts, 100% probability of severe retaliation, and it would ironically reinforce the case for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons).
2. Iran will get a nuclear weapon, because it makes strategic sense to do so (if it isn't obvious why, consider the example of Ukraine, and how different its situation would be if it hadn't given up its nukes).
3. Iran would not use any limited nuclear arsenal in a first strike, it would face obliteration.
4. Iran would not give a nuclear weapon to a 3rd party for use in a terrorist attack, as it is rather easy to look at characteristics of a nuclear detonation and determine origin, and it would face obliteration.
5. What's really happening? Israel is a paranoid security state. It wants to be able to dictate the terms of political issues via overwhelming military force, and the ultimate threat of its nuclear arsenal. A nuclear armed Iran, which would not be subject to Israel's bullying, would afford considerable political strength and physical protection to Hizbollah, Hamas, Palestinians, etc.

This is a long game being played. What is the "strategic sense" behind trying to replace the Assad government in Syria? Why are the USA, NATO Europe, the Israelis, Saudis and Qataris trying to get rid of Assad?

Syria under the Assads was a military ally of the USA during Desert Storm, and an intelligence / torture / rendition ally after 9/11. Please don't give me "human rights" as a reason. There was more personal freedom under Assad than in Saudi Arabia and about as much political freedom. Plus, as I said, we were sending people to Syria to be tortured there.

Even though supporting the rebels against Assad has resulted in a disaster with ISIS in Syria and Iraq, the USA is still supporting the rebels. WTF and why? You are presuming rational conduct in pursuit of the national interest. I say these fuckers are not rational.

What was the "strategic sense" behind upsetting a reasonable modus vivendi with an elected president in the Ukraine and fomenting a revolution against him?

I suppose there was some reason to get rid of Ghaddafi, given his record, but it's questionable given the outcome.

These power grabs have resulted in tens of thousands of deaths. All during Obama's term.

I predict a longer, more subtle campaign than with Iraq, Libya or Syria. The talks will fail, there will be no deal. There will be more pressure in Assad, taking him out and isolating Hezbollah is a predicate to any campaign against Iran.

There will be tougher sanctions against Iran, the west and the gulf will try to cut them off from the rest of the world. Then there will be an internal crisis precipitated in Iran, with the excitement of demonstrations against the government like in the time of the "Greens." Bombing will be in the mix eventually.

The goal is regime change, not stopping the nuclear program.

[VolandoVengoVolandoVoy]

(11-23-2014 11:45 AM)Rutting Elephant Wrote:  

Iran is full of heroin addicts. It is possible that US intel has been waging war quietly there for many years.

Meth has gotten big there too. There are plenty of elite hotties in the capital that like to party. They are allowed to do whatever they want as long as their parents stick to money and don't lose out on the behind the scenes Game of Thrones battle for political issues.

[xpatplayer]

America is already waging economic war against Iran. The sanctions really hurt the economy. America is trying hard to topple one Iranian ally (Syria) and is already on the way to proxy war with another (Russia).

I predict that the Balochis and KEM will get billions of dollars of aid to amp up their campaign. America wants nothing less than the destruction of a powerful state which acts in its own rational interests and follows its own principles, unlike the other corrupt American satellite states in the Middle East.

[tomtud]

I hope the men and women in the armed services do no fall for that trap like Cheney and bush made about Iraq.

Netanyahu makes some good points but Shiites aren't Sunni Muslims. Yes there is a fringe element from Hezbollah etc, but almost all of the suicide bombers and those wishing to have 72 virgins because 4 isn't enough in earth and become martyrs aren't from Shiism. So, I don't think Iran will want to commit suicide by bombing anybody.

The regime change will fall from within. The USA has meddled with Iranian affairs for many years (check out zeitgeist addendum).

If there is any war, it should be a war of cultural values. Free speech, women should act like women, men like men, war on the political elite, lobbyists and war on outting national interests ahead of foreign I.e don't send money to other countries as aid etc, but invest in your own backyard.

[lskdfjldsf]

Iran is our biggest problem in the Middle East and has been for some time. The key principle of our foreign policy since 2001 has been the destabilization of the region, rather than simply replacing governments hostile to us, in two countries bordering Iran with large Shiite populations and ethnic mixing. The goal has been to flood Iran with refugees, apply economic sanctions over an extended period of time, assassinate key scientists and researchers in the nuclear program, and promote pro-democracy movements within the country.

When you view Iran as the central figure in the Middle East, all of our policies begin to make sense. Creating chaos in neighboring countries is an enormous economic and political strain. Combined with a lowered standard of living for the population and high inflation in the economy, a continuation of these policies - while avoiding direct military confrontation - will eventually lead to an overthrow of the current government. We're playing chess and not checkers.

Iran has a long history and proud culture, a highly motivated and young population, and the capacity to become an economic and military powerhouse. They have an almost completely self-sufficient military industrial complex, and are experienced in fighting both insurgencies (Kurdish rebellions) as well as conventional wars (Iraq). It's in our own best interest, as well as Israel's (the actor behind 99% of the fear mongering in the US) to keep Iran pinned down and limit their sphere of influence among Shiite populations elsewhere.

In the long run, military force won't be required to achieve our objectives. Even if it were, the Middle East is at war in every corner, and no one has anything to gain from a large-scale conflict between the West and Iran. Israel would be destroyed, Europe would take some hits, and Iran would be completely flattened, allowing ISIS to roll in and "pacify" their Shiite friends.

[Quintus Curtius]

By constantly talking about these things, and hyping the subject over and over again, we're indirectly helping the psyops games of the US and Israel. I fear that this type of talk only feeds into the goals of the US and Israeli warmongers who want to provoke Iran into some sort of conventional warfare confrontation.

There already is a de facto low-intensity conflict going on in the region between the US and its flunkies, and Iran and its allies. It is being conducted through proxies, through special forces, and through informational warfare. Iran has the backing of Russia, has a solid presence in the region, and will not roll over for the imperialists. No one has the right to tell the Iranians what they can and cannot have, least of all the two nations (US and Israel) who are responsible for nearly all the bloodshed in the region since 1945.

Freedom has a price. Independence has a price. If you stand up to the bullying powers (US and Israel) they will come after you with everything. Iran has endured these little provocations and games since 1979, and will continue to endure them.

They threw everything they had at Asad, and he's still standing.

[TheWastelander]

We're not gong to war with Iran.

It's possible that we'll back groups that will fight Hezbollah in various places, but a direct war is just not going to happen.

We're just going to infect them with Western media until their government falls.

[Sp5]

This will be Fourth Generation warfare - subversion, hacking, cyberattacks, sabotage, social media campaigns.

All I say is - watch the media and the propaganda themes in the next few weeks.