Does Russia want a war between the West and Iran?

[Gelion]

It could be profitable for Russia only if Iran could withstand NATO attack. In reality, increase of oil prices would most likely be very short-term effect, like for a few months. And in long term we'll get new neighboring American puppet. What is currently profitable for Russia is maintaining balance of power in the world, which means reducing overexpanded American influence.

Despite some people treating OP is "interesting", this argument defeats the whole OP. Well done!

 

[Winner]

It could be profitable for Russia only if Iran could withstand NATO attack. In reality, increase of oil prices would most likely be very short-term effect, like for a few months. And in long term we'll get new neighboring American puppet. What is currently profitable for Russia is maintaining balance of power in the world, which means reducing overexpanded American influence.

1st, there is no reason to even contemplate an all-out war followed by a regime change. The US is in no position to get itself involved into something as messy, especially not if it was (technically) the aggressor, or at least an accomplice in an aggression by Israel.

2nd, if Iran bombs out oil terminals and continues to attack oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, the oil prices may stay high for a long time. Actually it could force the US to launch coastal raids and limited landings in order to remove Iranian anti-ship weapons from the range of passing supertankers. This would further increase tension and drive the oil prices even higher, while the Americans would get involved into another limited war with no clear strategy how to get out.

In the end, there would be some sort of cease-fire, but the tension would remain, the infrastructure in P.G. would have to be repaired and the waters cleared of mines and floating oil spills. Even then, oil prices would probably remain higher than usual as the Arabs would want more money to expand their militaries and repair the damage.

By then, the Russian goals will have been achieved.

Despite some people treating OP is "interesting", this argument defeats the whole OP. Well done!

What's the English word for a kid who never actually adds anything into a discussion and only fawns over others?

Gelion?

 

[Ecofarm]

It obviously benefits them (and China), but let's not demonize.

 

[Winner]

It obviously benefits them (and China), but let's not demonize.

Who's demonizing? I am actually admiring this strategy, even though I obviously want it to be foiled.

 

[Ecofarm]

Foiled? I want war with Iran. Anyone with a little bit of morals and ethics does?

 

[Winner]

Foiled? I want war with Iran. Anyone with a little bit of morals and ethics does?

I believe I have a little of both, which makes me want to avoid war with Iran...

(oh yeah, and the thing I call common sense also tells me a war with Iran would be a huge mistake, bit I admit that definitions of common sense vary)

 

[Ecofarm]

There's quite a few USians who want war with Iran, to depose a brutal dictatorship and try to install a democracy (which, will be easier to install in Iran than Iraq). They have thousands of citizens crying and dying for freedom, and you'd rather not help them?

I'm sure some of the Russians and Chinese see that war between the West and Iran benefits them geopolitically and economically but support such based on desire for human rights. That's why we should not demonize (not because we respect underhanded and selfish tactics). War with Iran is just and necessary.

 

[Winner]

There's quite a few USians who want war with Iran, to depose a brutal dictatorship and try to install a democracy (which, will be easier to install in Iran than Iraq). They have thousands of citizens crying and dying for freedom, and you'd rather not help them?

Simple realization than any "liberation by force" would probably kill about 100x more Iranians than a home-brewed revolution and make the rest hate you for the rest of their lives is a quite compelling argument against a war.

I'm sure some of the Russians and Chinese see that war between the West and Iran benefits them geopolitically and economically but support such based on desire for human rights. That's why we should not demonize (not because we respect underhanded and selfish tactics). War with Iran is just and necessary.

China wouldn't profit very much from this. If it ignored sanctions, it could profit from trade opportunities later on, but initially it would suffer because of high oil prices like everybody else, except the few oil-exporting countries which happen not to be in the Middle East.

 

[Agarwaen]

If a low intensity war with Iran would be so bad for the United States, wouldn't they prefer to extend their goal and remove the current Iranian regime? The risk of that outcome is not negligible, I think this could make the Russians think twice before cheer for a war.

 

[Winner]

If a low intensity war with Iran would be so bad for the United States, wouldn't they prefer to extend their goal and remove the current Iranian regime? The risk of that outcome is not negligible, I think this could make the Russians think twice before cheer for a war.

They correctly calculate that the US has no guts and means to do that. The US would in the worst case hit the nuclear facilities and related anti-aircraft and ballistic missile sites and wait what happens next.

 

[Ecofarm]

Simple realization than any "liberation by force" would probably kill about 100x more Iranians than a home-brewed revolution and make the rest hate you for the rest of their lives is a quite compelling argument against a war.

How many Iranians die every year? How many are tortured? Imprisoned wrongly? Raped by court sentence? FGM? Honor killings? Etc?

Saddam killed 250k Kurds, 50k Marsh Arabs and 400k children (via oil for food, nonetheless). I think the death, torture and injustice (death penalty for gays, for example) in Iran resulting from invasion, like Iraq, would be less than business as usual.

 

[RedRalph]

I dont think what Winner is saying is completely implausible, but maybe overstates things. Some form of conflict is in Russia's interest, but I think they would likely prefer it if that conflict stayed confined to diplomacy. However, they might view a small military encounter positively, i.e. the proposed airstikes, which would further push away any chance of a detent between Iran and the US, but do nothing that could threaten the Iranian state. Eventually they will sell the Iranians the SAM system, it makes sense, but I think at the same time Russia really doesn't want any new nuclear powered states, especially ones near enough to them.

Ideal situation for Russia? Some small form of military attack on Iran either takes place or seems imminent for a long time, driving up oil prices but not threatening the Iranian govt. Iran naturally seeks some form of protection by buying more hardware from Moscow, maybe become a full member of the SCO.

 

[red_elk]

Saddam killed 250k Kurds, 50k Marsh Arabs and 400k children (via oil for food, nonetheless). I think the death, torture and injustice (death penalty for gays, for example) in Iran resulting from invasion, like Iraq, would be less than business as usual.

Unfortunately, in murdering Iraqi people, Saddam was far outperformed by American liberators.

 

[Winner]

How many Iranians die every year? How many are tortured? Imprisoned wrongly? Raped by court sentence? FGM? Honor killings? Etc?

Saddam killed 250k Kurds, 50k Marsh Arabs and 400k children (via oil for food, nonetheless). I think the death, torture and injustice (death penalty for gays, for example) in Iran resulting from invasion, like Iraq, would be less than business as usual.

If you want to judge it by the numbers, I suggest you first invade:

1) North Korea
2) Sudan
3) Burma
4) China
5) Zimbabwe
etc.

Although the Iranian regime is tough, it's nowhere close to what's happening in North Korea or Sudan where thousands of people are being killed every year. North Korea runs a system of gulags, for gods sakes.

If you invaded Iran and attempted regime change, you'd cause massive material damage, tens of thousands of deaths and you'd utterly discredit any supporters of the West which are attempting to bring change to Iran.

You're simply being totally unrealistic if you think you could just drive a tank to Tehran and the people would welcome you with flowers.

 

[Masada]

Winner for once I agree with you. Also, why haven't' you cited van Ripper and the Millennium Challenge 2002.

 

[Winner]

Winner for once I agree with you. Also, why haven't' you cited van Ripper and the Millennium Challenge 2002.

Good point, I could have. The thing is that I don't believe that any such exercise can properly simulate a real war, so it would be wrong to make serious conclusion from it.

Anyway:

Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lt. General Paul K. Van Riper, used old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World War II lighting signals to get airplanes off the runways without using radio communication.

On the second day of the exercise Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet. Without warning, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles, overwhelming the Blue forces' electronic sensors, destroying sixteen warships. This includes one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five out of the six amphibious ships. The equivalent of this success in a real conflict would have resulted in the death of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missle offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats carrying out both conventional and suicide attacks, able to engage Blue forces due to Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.

At this point, the exercise was suspended and Blue's ships were "re-floated". There were many[who?] within the upper echelons of the Department of Defense that found the results displeasing, and it was decided to restart the wargame and change the rules of engagement. In the new restarted exercise the different sides were ordered to follow predetermined plans of action, leading to allegations that the exercise was scripted and "$250 million was wasted".[1] Due to his concerns about the scripted nature of the new exercise, Van Riper resigned his position in the midst of the war game.

Reminds me of the wargames run by the Soviets in the years preceding Barbarossa. If the enemy wins, ignore the exercise - we can't lose! I sometimes do the same when I play HoI2, but I don't have the audacity to call such a cheating a "simulation"

On serious note, I don't really think Iran could "sink" a significant portion of the US fleet operating in the region, but it could score some hits. After all, Argentinians only lost the Falklands because they were too far from the mainland. If they had had a better air coverage, the Brits would have suffered even more crippling losses at sea and the whole invasion might have ended in a disaster.



Now, the conditions in the Persian gulf are obviously different due to the fact that the Americans have airbases in many countries neighboring with Iran. Iran wouldn't be able to to even contest US air dominance, but it could use its vast stockpiles of ballistic missiles to hit US targets all over the region (and the countries hosting them) and then use hit-and-run tactics to make the Strait of Hormuz and the whole Persian Gulf too dangerous for civilian ships. It would be hard as hell to prevent them from doing that using only airstrikes. Sooner or later, if no cease-fire was made, the Americans would have to mount a partial invasion of Iran to make the Persian Gulf safe again.

Until then, the prices of oil would have skyrocketed to hundreds of dollars per barrel and Russia would have refilled its coffers with Western money. All the warmongers on this forum seem to believe that an invasion of Iran would be the same walk in the park as Iraq, which is just

 

[Masada]

The thing is that I don't believe that any such exercise can properly simulate a real war, so it would be wrong to make serious conclusion from it.

Its a pretty pertinent example of how a war with Iran might be difficult methinks. Besides their ability to hit oil installations inside the Gulf was test run for them by Saddam. They have better technology and should be able to overcome the problems Saddam's lot had.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Seems a rather tenuous plan. The Russian economy is falling now but it's got a plan whereby in... maybe... 20 years... Iran might make war against someone? Seems strange.

I would be more likely to believe it if Russia were actively engaged in enraging war with Iran, but I haven't noticed any such thing.

 

[Winner]

Seems a rather tenuous plan. The Russian economy is falling now but it's got a plan whereby in... maybe... 20 years... Iran might make war against someone? Seems strange.

I would be more likely to believe it if Russia were actively engaged in enraging war with Iran, but I haven't noticed any such thing.

Read my OP, sheesh.

I am not saying that Iran will attack or that the Russians want it to attack. The Russians just want to sabotage any diplomatic moves by the West to dissuade Iran from following its nuclear program which, they hope, will force Israel or the US to attack Iran.

 

[Winner]

Its a pretty pertinent example of how a war with Iran might be difficult methinks. Besides their ability to hit oil installations inside the Gulf was test run for them by Saddam. They have better technology and should be able to overcome the problems Saddam's lot had.

Their ballistic missile arsenal must be a headache for US military planners. If the Iranians manage to improve them and reduce their CEP, they will become a real threat to the whole neighborhood. It could be an effective way how to partially negate the US air superiority - if Iran could hit American bases with dozens of missiles, it would force the US to move its air units further from Iran to protect them.

Is the US keeping its aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, or they finally moved them out of it?