Will there be war with Iran?

[Renner]

Whoever is elected in 2112 will strike in 2113. Period. I expect massive air strikes and special ops with a real attempt to foster regime change via a popular uprising. Its going to be a real mess and Russia and China are not going to be happy campers. It could get out of hand.

Its a bit soon to make predictions for 100 years in the future I think.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I think it is necessary to protect global security against them having nukes. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is almost as bad as Adolf Hitler, with his Anti Semitic views and extremist standings being considered.

Oh, the Hitler card.
Ahmadinejad could be far crazier than Hitler and it wouldn't matter because he's not calling the shots in Iran. He's a figurehead and the Guardian Council has the real power.
If Iran wants nukes it wants them as a deterrencea nd not to NUKE Israel and promptly get NUKED back by Israel and the USA, but if you think you can afford another war that will damage your reputation further and strain your relationship with Russia and China go ahead and get it over with.

 

[Rulle_Kebab]

I think it is necessary to protect global security against them having nukes. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is almost as bad as Adolf Hitler, with his Anti Semitic views and extremist standings being considered. The only difference is Hitler built his weapons in secret, Ahmadinejad is letting the world know he is building nukes. They need to be stopped now for the interest of the free world. The LEAST that needs to be done, an SAS operation to rescue the hostages and air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. Do NOT negotiate with terrorists.

No, they are a radical Islamic theocracy that wants to NUKE Israel. The NATO interventions in the Middle East are justified. Iran could also give there nukes to terrorists.

I find these comments totally ridiculous

No intervention in the middle east has been justified. The invasion of Afghanistan wasn't justified. And claiming this shows a very very distorted view of the world in my oppinion. Hell I think I can't even find any war that the US or NATO has been involved in that has been justified since WW2.

If other nations can have nukes so can every other nation. Everything else is just silly.

I am with AL_DA_GREAT all the way here even tho some thinks he is trolling.

 

[Rulle_Kebab]

...and special ops with a real attempt to foster regime change via a popular uprising.

This was already tried, the socalled "Green Movement"...

 

[TheLastOne36]

We are already fighting a form of warfare against Iran. This will continue in a controlled way until Iran gives in or is defeated in some way.

The game-changer will occur if there is another terrorist attack such as 9/11. Without such an event, full-scale war is very unlikely as this kind of stand-off is a common feature of modern diplomacy. But with a game-changing attack - particularly a nuclear one - everything is going to go to s*** really fast.

I share a similar view. A war with Iran would be too bloody and too costly.

Another gamechanger though would be the event if Iran did ever get nukes and had Israel retaliate and bomb the crap out of their facilities.

 

[innonimatu]

Let me see... Russia, China and India are huge countries with which the US and its allies have zero leverage for military access. The pakistani elite is increasingly being forced to consider the option of dropping its conflicts with India altogether and seeking an alliance with those three countries, rather than keep being kicked around by their american "allies". Iran is understandably hostile, thus no access there also.

So, looking at a map... how exactly is NATO going to continue its colonial occupation of Afghanistan, and keep its central asian bases? I bet that some people are urging an invasion of Iran. "Iranian nuclear weapons" would be just another fabricated excuse, as they were for Iraq, the real goal being continued access to central Asia. Empires hate giving up territory, irrationally so.

 

[Joecoolyo]

This thread went to the nutter bin quicker than I thought it would.

 

[Tommy Vercetti]

Iran as a whole is almost as bad as Nazi Germany.

 

[aelf]

Ahmadinejad could be far crazier than Hitler and it wouldn't matter because he's not calling the shots in Iran. He's a figurehead and the Guardian Council has the real power.

Are you sure about that?

I don't think he's just a figurehead, and even if his power is that limited, I'm pretty sure he's not always been a very obedient puppet. He's more radical than the Guardian Council.

 

[Agarwaen]

Are you sure about that?

I don't think he's just a figurehead, and even if his power is that limited, I'm pretty sure he's not always been a very obedient puppet. He's more radical than the Guardian Council.

Actually, it appears that he is the moderate one. But he has no control over the army, so he has little importance in the case of war.

 

[katipunero]

let Iran do what it wants. it's a sovereign country for chrissakes!

to answer the question, a war with Iran is a possibility. but i don't think it will happen anytime soon contrary to what the headlines quoted suggest.

 

[asbestos]

Iran as a whole is almost as bad as Nazi Germany.

How, if I may ask, are they even as remotely evil as Nazi Germany?

 

[aelf]

Actually, it appears that he is the moderate one.

Moderate by what measure?

He's not as conservative as the Guardian Council, if that's what you mean.

But he has no control over the army, so he has little importance in the case of war.

How about the Revolutionary Guard?

 

[Agarwaen]

Aelf,

A mean, the president in Iran is not like in the USA, he has no control over the armed forces. The revolutionary guard, in particular, is like a paralel army with an economic clout over the iranian economy.
So they have a president, who governs over a consil of ministers, but there is a supreme leader which controls all armed forces, all religious institutions (it is a teocracy after all) and some other institutions (national radios, the highest positions in the judiciary, etc).
Besides the armed forces there are the Guardians of the Revolution, a paralell army, or the real army. They manage the key military projects (like the missiles), and have their own navy and air forces. As the name indicates they are the real regime supporters and in many ways the real power that have to be defeated for a change to be possible. It was reported that amidst large revolts in the last election, Ahmadinejad was slapped by the Revolutionary Guard Chief of Staff for suggesting more freedom of the press.

 

[innonimatu]

Another gamechanger though would be the event if Iran did ever get nukes and had Israel retaliate and bomb the crap out of their facilities.

Israel doesn't even have the capacity to win a war right next door against a militia, as it showed in Lebanon, 2006. The only way they can militarily damage Iran is by convincing the americans to do it for them.

 

[dosed150]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Ahmadinejad is the 16th most powerful person in the iranian government, so what he says is probably not worth much

as for attacking Iran it would just be such a stupid idea, we would gain nothing and probably lose a lot

its weird to think how much things have changed in 10 years, Iran actually cooperated with the invasion of afghanistan, there was even a few joint missions, it seems that that calling them part of the axis of evil thing ruined chances of cooperation

 

[Winner]

Israel doesn't even have the capacity to win a war right next door against a militia, as it showed in Lebanon, 2006. The only way they can militarily damage Iran is by convincing the americans to do it for them.

False and wrong.

Israel has the capacity to defeat any "militia" (let's call it a terrorist-guerilla group which it is) in Lebanon or Gaza, if the world lets it do it. Unfortunately, every time Israel tries to deal with these kinds of enemies, useful idiots in the West help pile up pressure against it to stop its military operations before victory is achieved. Israel can't afford long anti-guerilla wars, not militarily, but diplomatically.

As for striking against Iran, we've been over it. Israel is capable of hitting the important targets, although it would be preferable if someone else did it.

 

[Leoreth]

Israel doesn't even have the capacity to win a war right next door against a militia, as it showed in Lebanon, 2006. The only way they can militarily damage Iran is by convincing the americans to do it for them.

You need to achieve different things to beat a militia relying on asymmetrical warfare than to defeat a country. Israel's goals might be already achieved by destroying all Iranian nuclear facilities, and afaik their airforce is capable of that.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I don't think the USA or UK will do anything. If we don't do anything, Britain, a far less aggressive nation, certainly won't.

As for Israel, which treats everything as a possible threat, they most certainly will attack Israel.

The real question is - will we be insane enough to back them, or will we finally cut our ties?

Lobbyists in the US government tarnish our international reputation by supporting such a controversial state. I think the Arab world, being larger than Israel by a few hundred million, is more valuable than Israel.

 

[imperialman]

Hell I think I can't even find any war that the US or NATO has been involved in that has been justified since WW2.

Britain has been involved in the Falklands War and Sierra Leone, I'd argue they were both justified and one even had support from some NATO members.