12
   

An unbiased view of the conflict with Iran. What is really happening?

 
 
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2019 05:59 pm
I am trying to get beyond the propaganda. I am reading as much as I can from as many perspectives as I can. This is what I believe so far...

1) It seems likely that Iran is behind the recent attacks on ships in the gulf of Oman. I don't automatically believe US government propaganda, but from everything I read Iran is the probable culprit.

2) These attacks make sense. The US is putting pretty intense economic pressure on Iran. Iran needs to push back in order to force the US to give it a reasonable chance of negotiation. These attacks threaten US interests and the world economy. It is a clear message that the US can't continue its hard-line policy without paying a heavy price.

3) Everyone knows that the US will win any military conflict with Iran... as long as it is willing to pay the cost.

4) The cost of winning a war in Iran will be very high. If you doubt this, remember our experience in Iraq. There will be another drop in US prestige, severe unrest in the middle east and a bunch of expected and unexpected consequences from the inspiration of more terror groups to severe oil shortages.

5) The current system of harsh economic punishments to enforce policies that Iran finds untenable can not last long. Trump is escalating. Iran is responding with escalations of their own.

6) There is an argument that if war with Iran is inevitable. If this is the case, we should enter the war intelligently and with a good plan. The American people should be prepared for the costs of another, possibly bigger, war with Americans fighting in the Middle East.

7) If we don't want a war, the only other option is for the US to soften its negotiating stance with the idea that Iran would do the same.

8) Whether you support a war with Iran or not, Trump is giving out a very confused message. He isn't preparing the American people for war. He isn't outlining a plan for negotiations. He isn't addressing the cost of war. He isn't saying that he wants a war, but he also isn't saying that he is going to avoid a war.

The Trump administration had better outline a plan to the American people quickly. We deserve it. I don't know about anyone else, but I find this a little scary.

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 12 • Views: 3,012 • Replies: 95

 
View best answer, chosen by maxdancona
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2019 12:07 am
The Trump administration reneged on the nuclear deal with Iran because it wants to curtail Iran's influence in the region, its "malign" activities, for the benefit of Israel and Saudi Arabia and is willing to wage a limited war against it, mostly to cripple it's military capabilities. I don't see a full blown invasion and occupation Ă  la Iraqi Freedom. The administration would have to convince the American people that a war would be necessary in response to Iranian aggression against it.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2019 04:01 am
There's also a complex relationship between the Trump administration, Saudi Arabia, and the U.A.E.
Quote:
Well, the truth is that the UAE's conflict with Iran goes way back to before the Iranian revolution. Iran is right across the Persian Gulf from the UAE. The UAE is a tiny country with an enormous amount of money, an enormous amount of oil. So they are understandably nervous about their larger and adversarial neighbors. And that has always included Iran since 1971 when the UAE first became a country and Iran took the opportunity of that weekend to snatch three disputed islands. So they've got a thing about Iran.

In the current moment, they are very interested in making sure that the U.S. also stays unfriendly with Iran. What they would like most of all is to keep the American allied block at their back and opposed to Iran, so they're very invested in those tensions. And they were dismayed, really panicked, when President Obama tried to reach a deal - did reach a deal - with Iran to constrain its nuclear program, thereby conferring some kind of legitimacy on the Iranian regime.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2019 04:26 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

1) It seems likely that Iran is behind the recent attacks on ships in the gulf of Oman.


So much for an unbiased view.
0 Replies
 
eurocelticyankee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2019 05:16 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
It seems likely that Iran is behind the recent attacks on ships in the gulf of Oman. I don't automatically believe US government propaganda, but from everything I read Iran is the probable culprit.


Why does it seem likely?. There's as good an argument that Iran would be stupid to carry out these attacks. They might have the unholy trinity out to start a war with them but they still have Europe on board with the deal. The deal the US reneged on.

Do you not think the Saudi's led by that monster MBS (Mister Bone Saw) are capable of false flag op's, probably with the help of the US.

Then there's Israel who are more involved in interfering with other nations politics than Russia. a false flag op like this would be childs play to them.
And let's face it the number 1 priority for both Israel and Saudi Arabia is the destruction of Iran.

What have you read, have you read anything from the European pov or the Russian pov.

Or heaven help us, from the Iranian pov.


eurocelticyankee
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2019 05:20 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
4) The cost of winning a war in Iran will be very high. If you doubt this, remember our experience in Iraq. There will be another drop in US prestige, severe unrest in the middle east and a bunch of expected and unexpected consequences from the inspiration of more terror groups to severe oil shortages.


Iraq will seem like a skirmish compared to what will happen if Iran is attacked.

Quote:
There will be another drop in US prestige

Are you having a laugh. What prestige?, Trump & co finished off any last shred of prestige the US had.
0 Replies
 
eurocelticyankee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2019 05:26 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
7) If we don't want a war, the only other option is for the US to soften its negotiating stance with the idea that Iran would do the same.


That would be the preferred outcome by all right minded people. but first off who would trust any deal made with the US now when Trump can renege on it on a whim or if told to do so by Fox.

Also Israel & the Saudi's wouldn't be happy, nothing short of war will satisfy them.
And sure Israel is the tail that's been wagging the dog (US) for years which makes war almost certain.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2019 05:28 am
@eurocelticyankee,
It sounds like a repeat of the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

Everyone knew the US would win any military conflict with Vietnam until they got their arses handed to them on a plate.

If nothing else it will give the Russians a chance to try out their missile system against US planes and iron out any problems it may have had.
eurocelticyankee
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2019 05:31 am
@izzythepush,
Two words Izzy.

Dirty Bombs.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2019 05:54 am
@eurocelticyankee,
It's not like radioactive materials are very hard to come by. I'm not talking about weapons grade plutonium but the sort of stuff used for x ray machines at dentists and hospitals.

That could really **** up a densely populated area in the short term.
eurocelticyankee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2019 06:21 am
@izzythepush,
This war will be catastrophic. Iran has an extensive nuclear program and uranium mines so they have access to radioactive material.

But I'm thinking of the carnage. These nations hate each other with a vengeance. A completely different scenario to the Iraq war. This will not end well.
Imagine the refugee problem this war will cause.
0 Replies
 
eurocelticyankee
 
  3  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2019 06:25 am
Latest I'm hearing is the US are showing a video of an Iranian boat alongside a ship, quality of the video is terrible and doesn't show them actually doing anything.

Meanwhile the owners of the Japanese ship say it was struck by an airborne missile not a torpedo.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2019 06:28 am
@eurocelticyankee,
And not a mine either.

The country that gave us Hollywood can easily fake such stuff.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2019 06:32 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

1) It seems likely that Iran is behind the recent attacks on ships in the gulf of Oman. I don't automatically believe US government propaganda, but from everything I read Iran is the probable culprit.

Iran is supplying the rebels in the Yemani civil war, SA is supplying the government. The rebels are increasingly using clever techniques to attack Saudi interests directly, but there is no reason to believe that the Iranians are directing those attacks even if you see Iranian arms any more than to believe that the US government is directing Saudi involvement because the Saudi's are using US weapons.
maxdancona wrote:

2) These attacks make sense. The US is putting pretty intense economic pressure on Iran. Iran needs to push back in order to force the US to give it a reasonable chance of negotiation. These attacks threaten US interests and the world economy. It is a clear message that the US can't continue its hard-line policy without paying a heavy price.

I think the opposite. They make sense from the perspective of the Houthi rebels who are generally incapable of striking back against the Saudis so will take what they can, but the Iranians win by making the US the bad guy and attacking a Japanese commercial vessel the same day that the Japanese Prime Minister was visiting Iran does the complete opposite of that. I also think that these attacks do extremely little to threaten the world economy and completely nothing to impact the US. They are a black eye to the Saudis, nothing more.
maxdancona wrote:

4) The cost of winning a war in Iran will be very high. If you doubt this, remember our experience in Iraq. There will be another drop in US prestige, severe unrest in the middle east and a bunch of expected and unexpected consequences from the inspiration of more terror groups to severe oil shortages.

You have barely captured the impact of a war against Iran. Iran has 3x the population as Iraq and serious allies in China and Russia. During the early days of the Iran/Iraq war when Iran was completely isolated and Iraq had the support of the world, Iran basically sent in waves of cannon fodder to push the Iraqis back. It would be a blood bath to invade Iran. The more likely scenario is US strikes against Iran, much like what we did in Bosnia. Still, you are right that we will not make friends and influence people. The Chinese in particular will not appreciate the threat to their oil supply.
maxdancona wrote:

7) If we don't want a war, the only other option is for the US to soften its negotiating stance with the idea that Iran would do the same.

Unfortunately, the US has no credibility. We made an agreement with Iran, Iran complied with their part of the agreement, the US unilaterally broke it then imposed harsher sanctions than were in place before the agreement. How does Iran and the international community proceed in the future especially given that the US administration is now being led by people who have said (for decades) that you can't negotiate with Iran? We are in a terrible position to negotiate our way out of this if we start it.
maxdancona wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but I find this a little scary.

Agreed.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2019 06:34 am
It seems the main disagreement with my analysis is my contention that Iran is most likely behind the attacks. I accept that it is possible that the Saudis or Saudi allies might be stirring up trouble in a false flag attack.

My intention on this thread is to avoid the partisan name calling on the other Iran thread. I want to hear analysis.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2019 06:45 am
@maxdancona,
If that's your intention then why do I get the feeling that you just want to lecture people on how partisan they all are and how only a moderate like you can see the true picture?

You're not at all unbiased, and you're not remotely moderate.

Try being honest for a change and you might get somewhere.

As it is your smug patronising tone just puts people's backs up.

It's as likely if not more so that the CIA/Saudi Arabia/Israel or its proxies are responsible.

Even if they're not it could be another non state actor like Hezbollah or any number of radical Sunni/Shia groups that want to muddy the waters. Just because a Shia group like Hezbollah is supported and funded by Iran doesn't mean they take their orders from Iran.

Lokk at Yemen, the Shia rebels Houthi rebels have attacked a Saudi airport twice. The Saudis are blaming Iran, but both Iran and the Houthis are denying Iran's involvement.

In short the situation in The ME is incredibly complex and someone with your monochrome partisan view will never understand the intricacies of the situation.

0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2019 06:48 am
@maxdancona,
To be clear, I'm not saying this is a false flag, more that an attack by the Houthi rebels is being attributed to the Iranians to support an agenda that this current administration wants to pursue much like 911 was used to whip up hysteria against Iraq. It is really weird that the Japanese reach out to Iran and a Japanese vessel is attacked.
eurocelticyankee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2019 07:07 am
@engineer,
The Houthi rebels have been using bomb carrying drones to attack inside SA.
So with the owners of the Japanese ship saying the attack was airborne they do look suspect.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2019 07:18 am
@engineer,
The Houthi rebels are supported by Iran. If these attacks were done by Houthi rebels, and the Iranians didn't approve of these attacks before hand, I would think they could tell them to cut it out now.

There is the possibility that the Japanese vessel wasn't specifically targeted. If you tell paramilitary forces to put bombs on ships... you might not think to tell them to avoid Japanese ships for a specific two week period.

I am trying to understand the motive.

If I were Iran, I would to escalate to send a message that the US "economic war" (that is what Iran is calling it) will not bring peace. The Iranians are trading stability for and end to sanctions.... that it is the deal that will be made. The only way to get that deal is to show that sanctions lead to instability.

You are correct that this doesn't prove anything, but it is a motive that makes sense to me. I would do consider the same strategy.

The "false flag" attack... that an enemy of Iran did the attacks to justify a US attack is the other explanation that makes sense to me.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jun, 2019 07:39 am
@maxdancona,
And you know that how?

There are lots of non state actors in the region, and many could be acting on their own initiative.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » An unbiased view of the conflict with Iran. What is really happening?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/19/2019 at 03:38:26