• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Yet another war, this time with Iran

bilby said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
For the last fifty years Iran has been "12 years away from acquiring nuclear weapons". Here's something to know - if a country is starting from ground zero, that county is 12 years away from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
It took the Tube Alloys and Manhattan projects about six years, starting from the position of not even knowing that nuclear weapons were possible.

I reckon that any modern nation, knowing that nuclear weapons can be built, and starting only with the information currently freely available about the way they work, could build a fission bomb in a couple of years if they really wanted to.

H-Bombs are a bit trickier. But not a lot.

The real difficulty is making them small and light enough to be delivered to their targets by plane or missile. And that difficulty is readily overcome by unconventional delivery methods - you can get a shipping container delivered anywhere in the world in a couple of months, and most large cities are ports.

And none of these problems apply if you can just buy a warhead from Russia.
Click to expand...
I am sure that Barbos knows a seller.
bilby said:
Twelve years? Only if they don't really want to do it, or have been infiltrated by saboteurs. Both likely apply in the case of Iran.

To be honest, stopping Iran from getting nukes is a mug's game. The smart move would be to stop them from wanting them; Or even smarter, from wanting to use them if, as, and when they get them.

Dropping bombs on them is unlikely to help with these goals.
Click to expand...
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Well, first of all, what I consider a very important reason but nobody else does, Iran is not a threat to the USA.
Click to expand...
Iran is a threat to the US and to the region.
It won't be like Iraq.
Click to expand...
No, it won't. It would be very difficult to invade and occupy Iran - it's a far more populous country, with a much less accessible terrain. So any intervention would be limited to air strikes.
Iran also has a more unified identity, as opposed to Iraq which was stitched together haphazardly after WWI, consisting of Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs and the Kurds.
It will be more like Afghanistan but more so. It will require a lot of manpower to do this particular attack.
Click to expand...
It would, if ground invasion and occupation were the goal.

Speaking of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan seem to be going to war. Did not have that on my bingo card for 2026.
Otherwise it will simply be the US lobbing missiles and accomplishing nothing. Perhaps Trump will try in Iran what he ordered in Venezuela.
Click to expand...
Khamenei getting blindfolded and led to MDC Brooklyn would be quite a sight, but I do not think it's realistic.
I think air attacks against the regime targets - especially IRGC, would weaken the regime enough that it would collapse.
Of course the last time an Arab leader was taken out as the target the result was Arabs buying and selling African slaves in Libya.
Click to expand...
Iran is not an Arab country.
Also the USA is broke. Very very broke.
Click to expand...
Far less broke than Iran.
How the hell is the government going to afford this?
Click to expand...
moneyprintergobrrr.jpg

Seriously, a full-scale invasion would indeed be very expensive. But an air campaign, with maybe some special forces operating on the ground, would be far less so. And assets like aircraft careers are deployed anyway, so they do not add that much to the cost. Flyboys have to fly a certain number of hours, training flights or dropping a Hellfire on the ayatollah matters little; the only net cost is hazard pay and live vs. training ordinance.
I guess the dollar will be debased even more. Hooray for wartime inflation. We're still catching our breath from the last bout of inflation.
Click to expand...
Just buy some Lockheed and Raytheon stock and you'll be able to afford eggs. /s
But seriously, I think it will be a much more limited thing than you imagine.
Now the Mullahs in Iran are already facing strong civil unrest that could actually unseat them.
Click to expand...
The Mullahs brutally crushed that unrest, murdering tens of thousands. With some help from the US, including hitting IRGC assets, things might have turned differently.
Nothing unites a country like an external threat.
Click to expand...
If the strikes are focused on regime assets, I do not know how much regular Iranians would perceive it as an external threat.
 
Jarhyn said:
Not to mention that this would never end with Iran having a stable democratic government.of experience and observation have any use at all, a better metric for the outcome would be looking at Iraq and what happened there.
Click to expand...
Don't let their similar names fool you, those two are very different in almost every aspect.
 
I mean, fuck Israel. I couldn't care less.
Beyond that, it seems like we are trying to fix something we broke by breaking it even more. Go figure.
But Derec's point about proper targeting is valid. If done properly and with the CIA spreading the good news beforehand, it could work.
What would come to power afterwards is a whole other matter. The US would not have the grip on Iran post overthrow it has on Venezuela.
 
IMHO, this escalation of threat against Iran is not necessarily a serious one. I think it is much more political theatre and a diversionary tactic. Trump is keenly aware of his waning attraction and that of the GOP. Midterm elections are approaching. So he needs enemies to attack a immigrants, Somalis, Mn, Iran, etc- to shore up the GOP base snd to divert attention from his unfulfillable promises and debacles.

If his bluff is called and we start bombing, he can also expand his domestic terror campaign to Muslims. And, in a perverse way he would be extorting the Nobel Peace Prize committee.

Do I think this is a plan that will make the world safer? Neither history nor rationality suggest it will. But that is not what drives this plan - Trump’s insatiable ego and need for power does.
 
Maybe we should all cool down, though. We're not at war. We're in talks. We have an experienced foreign policy hand at the wheel -- Jared.

Jesusfuckingchrist.
 
Last edited:
The USA toppled the Iran government and replaced with the dictator 'Shah'. There were fears of oil being nationalized. An Iranian told me before that the people liked the USA.

There was an American who died defending the Iranian democracy movent and was an Iranian hero.;

Aft6er the revolution gaainst Shah the conservative clerics defeated the democracy supporters and seized control. The regime that exists today.
 
ZiprHead said:
We are a bigger threat to Iran.
Click to expand...
If you mean the Tehran regime, then I sure hope so.

If you mean the Iranian people, then no. The Tehran regime is the biggest threat to them.
Not just brutally murdering civilians, but the IRGC is also corrupt af which leaves infrastructure in shambles.
Iran’s sinking cities: how IRGC corruption and regime negligence are engineering a national catastrophe
At least Mussolini made the trains run on time. The Mullahs are not even competent fascists.
 
The Orange One told reporters today that we may have to pull off a "friendly takeover of Cuba", whatever the hell that means. Maybe it'll be modeled on how God deals with people in the Bible, i.e., holylovemurder. Donald, time to take the MoCA again. You're babbling!!
 
TV and credit cards said:
I mean, fuck Israel. I couldn't care less.
Click to expand...
Why? They are an important ally, and they face the same enemy we in the West do - Islamofascism.
Beyond that, it seems like we are trying to fix something we broke by breaking it even more. Go figure.
Click to expand...
The Carter administration did not help matters any, what with his UN ambassador calling Khomeini "a saint", but I place the major blame on France for giving aid and comfort to Khomeini.
Young Praises Islam as ‘Vibrant’ And Calls the Ayatollah ‘a Saint’
Khomeini launched a revolution from a sleepy French village

Domestically, there is also the Marxist movement to blame. They worked with the Leopard-Eating-Faces Islamists to depose the Shah, and then were surprised when the leopards ate their faces.
images

And the western Leftists still haven't learned the lesson that you should not work together with Islamists.

But Derec's point about proper targeting is valid. If done properly and with the CIA spreading the good news beforehand, it could work.
What would come to power afterwards is a whole other matter. The US would not have the grip on Iran post overthrow it has on Venezuela.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I certainly have no confidence in Trump administration's competence here.
 
pood said:
The U.S. and Britain’s are ultimately responsible for the mess in Iran today.
Click to expand...
Not that tired old chestnut!

Even the writers for this Howard Zinn website know the argument is full of shit, which is why they hedge in the headline. They call Mossadegh "democratically elected" rather than "democratic", because he surely did not govern democratically. Quite beside the point that he was an ally of Moscow and expropriated foreign oil companies, he ruled by decree and stopped the voting in the 1952 election so he would not lose seats to the opposition.

Also, any connection between the 1953 fall of Mossadegh and the 1979 Islamic Revolution of power is highly tenuous.
It’s so amazingly predictable how armchair warriors love to advocate bombing Iran now and blowing shit up, maybe with some special forces thrown in for good measure. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yeah, what's wrong with that?
It won’t work, of course, but what armchair warrior doesn’t want to watch stuff go BOOM!
Click to expand...
How do you know for sure? Of course, Trump can always mess things up, but why are you so sure that it won't work?
The regime is really unpopular, not only because of its oppression but also because of its incompetence and corruption. Weakening its organs, especially the IRGC thugs, could lead to a successful uprising by the people.
 
Last edited:
ZiprHead said:
ideologyhunter said:
Trump's gotta know that his spiel about gasoline being cheaper would be dead if he started bombing runs on Iran....doesn't he?
Click to expand...
Right after Trump's announcement gas prices here shot up 60 cent/gal.
Click to expand...
[citation needed] for such a large increase in price.
I see no such jump over here. There has been a modest rise in gas prices over the last couple of weeks, but I think that's normal seasonal increase. Gas prices are still lower than they have been in recent years (post-Pandemic)
fredgraph (3).png

It will probably be different if there is actually a shooting war and especially if Iran mines the Strait of Hormuz or similar.
 
steve_bank said:
The USA toppled the Iran government and replaced with the dictator 'Shah'.
Click to expand...
While the US (and UK) did help the overthrow of Mossadegh, this is quite a misleading formulation of it.
Mossadegh was quite controversial inside Iran and there was a lot of opposition to him. Yes, US and UK helped things along. But it's misleading to say that "USA toppled", as if it was a unilateral action. It is also misleading that Mossadegh was "replaced with the dictator 'Shah'".
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was Shah from 1941 to 1979. Before that, his father Reza Shah reigned from 1925 to 1941. So no, Mosaddegh was not "replaced with the [...] Shah". He was replaced with another prime minister, Fazlollah Zahedi.
There were fears of oil being nationalized.
Click to expand...
Not just nationalized, but also that foreign oil companies would not be compensated. Mossadegh was an ally of Moscow, btw.
He also did not govern democratically. He empowered himself to rule by decree, and in the 1952 elections he stopped the voting as soon as quorum was reached so opposition parties would not win seats.
An Iranian told me before that the people liked the USA.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of Iranian people have liked the USA since 1953 too.
There was an American who died defending the Iranian democracy movent and was an Iranian hero.;
Click to expand...
Who are you talking about?
Aft6er the revolution gaainst Shah the conservative clerics defeated the democracy supporters and seized control. The regime that exists today.
Click to expand...
It shows just how dangerous it is to collaborate with the Islamists. Modern Western Left should be taking notes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom