Iran is run by an insane religious mafia who believes that martyrdom is a noble cause and may be infact extended to a whole people and not just individual suicide bombers.

their insistence on pursuing with their nuclear program will soon meet counter-action by one or several parties. those parties include US, Israel, UN, EU. the counter-action includes diplomatic sanctions, economic sanctions, military action. the latter can be as simple as a couple sabotage operations, or as complicated as a full bombing campaign or even an occupation. the latter is remote, but "no option is off the table".

it is inevitable that Iran will keep doing what it's doing, and it is inevitable that something will be done about it.

the question is what will the Iranian religious mafia/junta do when something is done to stand up to them?

the question is not whether any action against them is "moral" or "legal", or anything like that. i'd just like to discuss their possible actions, and repercussions it will have on the rest of the world (balance of power, new conflicts, economic effects, etc.) and on us personally (i.e. higher gas prices at the pumps, etc.)

.....
personally, i just hope all the mullahs will die of aids next week so elections can be held.. but that's not going to happen... so, discuss

"Iran is run by an insane religious mafia who believes that martyrdom is a noble cause and may be infact extended to a whole people and not just individual suicide bombers."

any proof or is that another opinion?

lets stop spraying ignorance onto other countries ... if the above sentence some how justifies what america is planing to do in iran someone deserves a slap.

1. maybe the people like their government if they didnt a revolution would have changed it.

2. iran has the same system iraq just elected so whats so wrong with iran's way of life cvompared to that of iraq, and please dont say "free elections" because it will make me throw up my lunch with laughter.


WAIT here is an idea of what to do, leave them alone... from now on no one bothers anyone else or continues accusing them of somthing that hasnt happened yet. maybe their making the nukes to protect themselvs from opinions like the one above.


"it is inevitable that Iran will keep doing what it's doing, and it is inevitable that something will be done about it."

no shit because the world dosnt like muslims now-a-days,
:m:

the question is not whether any action against them is "moral" or "legal", or anything like that.

Ah yes, so much easyer to be a cowboy when troublesome things like morality and legality don't factor into the decision making process.

Iran is run by an insane religious mafia who believes that martyrdom is a noble cause and may be infact extended to a whole people and not just individual suicide bombers.
And from the Iranian side the view is one of a US administration of fundamentalist Christians which believe war against nations like Iraq is divinely instituted Holy writ
Bush Credits God, Not US, for Freedom Movement in Mideast
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=59917&d=5&m=3&y=2005
their insistence on pursuing with their nuclear program will soon meet counter-action by one or several parties.
On what legal grounds ? Seeing the EU and the IAEA have said Iran is not pursuing an Atomic Weapons programme .
those parties include US, Israel, UN, EU.
Only the USA and Israel , which is typical as Israel is the only nation in that region which actually has Atomic weapons .
the counter-action includes diplomatic sanctions, economic sanctions, military action.
Again on what legal grounds does the US have to implement such sanctions and on what authority would the US act on with which to attack Iran ?
the latter can be as simple as a couple sabotage operations, or as complicated as a full bombing campaign or even an occupation. the latter is remote, but "no option is off the table".
First the US must prove that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme and is actually developing such weapons . And since America has been caught lying red handed over the Iraq WMD what credence can we place on American evidence against Iran .
it is inevitable that Iran will keep doing what it's doing, and it is inevitable that something will be done about it.
What is exactly Iran doing and what will it keep doing ?
the question is what will the Iranian religious mafia/junta do when something is done to stand up to them?
“the Iranian religious mafia/junta” what an infantile assertion .
the question is not whether any action against them is "moral" or "legal", or anything like that.
Thereby excusing yourself from having to actually back up your ridiculous claims .
i'd just like to discuss their possible actions, and repercussions it will have on the rest of the world (balance of power, new conflicts, economic effects, etc.) and on us personally (i.e. higher gas prices at the pumps, etc.)
If Iran is invaded and occupied by America nothing will happen as Iran is not an important cog in the global economic machinery life will go on . The US only wants to invade Iran to prevent the EU from securing a foothold in Iran thereby outflanking US oil corporation control of mideast oil which consequently is Europes main supply .
The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target: The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Market
The Iranians are about to commit an "offense" far greater than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro of Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Numerous articles have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as 2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are unspoken macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real Reasons regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming euro-based oil Bourse. http://100777.com/node/1196
personally, i just hope all the mullahs will die of aids next week so elections can be held.. but that's not going to happen... so, discuss
And I hope the Israeli leadership all die of food poisoning from eating lox contaminated with pork product .

can nobody read on this forum???


the question is not whether any action against them is "moral" or "legal", or anything like that. i'd just like to discuss their possible actions, and repercussions it will have on the rest of the world (balance of power, new conflicts, economic effects, etc.) and on us personally (i.e. higher gas prices at the pumps, etc.)

thats exactly what i posted points 1 and 2 about sort of...

I think if iran is removed israel will be even more out of control in the middle east,

also if you look at iraq and kuwait , during the gulf war oil prices rose, so if you take iran the 2nd largest natural gas exporter , if a war breaks out the prices of gas will rise.

no man. your points 1 & 2 were "Iran has a government that is liked by its people (not true, and even if it was, it's irrelevant to this topic) and doesn't deserve to have any actions taken against it (also an irrelevant argument)

this is what i really want to discuss:
In the case of a US attack, a shut down of the Strait of Hormuz — where all of the Persian Gulf bound oil tankers must pass — could easily trigger a market panic with oil prices skyrocketing to $100 per barrel or more ... Why are the neoconservatives willing to take such risks?"

http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve05/1215iran.html


this Starit of Hormuz is a little bottleneck in the Persian Gulf only 2 miles wide, thru which at least 40% of the world oil passes via oil tankers.
Iran can blockade it and cause a repeat of the '73 scenario.
it was revealed recently that in '73 the US gov't was ready to send soldiers to oil installations in the Arab countries since it considered the OPEC boycott an act of war. i'm sure they have a back up plan such as this in place.

...

to confirm my original assertion from the 1st post, here are news from today:

Speaking during a two-day international conference on nuclear technology, Rowhani said Iran will halt negotiations and resume uranium enrichment "without any hesitation" if European negotiators insist Iran make its temporary suspension of uranium enrichment permanent.

"Americans and Europeans will be the first to lose in that case," he told more than 50 nuclear scientists and experts attending the Tehran conference. "It will cause problems for regional energy and for the European economy.

"And it will cause additional problems for America. Therefore, no one will benefit from this. It's playing with fire."


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050305/D88KR1J80.html


they're ALREADY threatening EU with a boycott... and EU is the "good cop".

so, can anybody on sciforums that can read and understand English contribute their 2 cents?

The problem is that Iran isn't quite as cocky as Iraq was. They might actually prepare.

In case they feel threatened... they try everything. Their leaders will begin trying to stir up the public about these crusaters from the west and how they will destroy every mosque, rape your children, and eat their flesh in a recipe made for pork. Fathers will probably cut the throats of each of their own familymembers before rushing out to combat American forces with nothing more than some 50 year old rifle.

The majority of their armed forces will probably break quickly once the area bombing has begun, but they might do what Saddam did in '91. Set oilwells on fire and probably do the same to whole cities minutes before they are captured.

Yeah... That sounds like Iran.

So I take it you haven't visited lately!

I could visit... but only if I wanted to be shot on sight.
American=Infidel.

can nobody read on this forum???
Please ask youself this question before asking others the same.
You accused Iran of "run by an insane religious mafia who believes that martyrdom is a noble cause and may be infact extended to a whole people and not just individual suicide bombers." then followed up with "the question is not whether any action against them is "moral" or "legal", or anything like that"

My suggestion: Revise before posting.

can nobody read on this forum???
Cant you construct a straight forward post which just asks that question instead of adding unnecessary predjudiced statements which invites answers .

i knew this would happen.. i mean, i am on sciforum after all..

fine. let's straighten this out for the ESL people in the house:

the question is not whether any action against them is "moral" or "legal", or anything like that
by writing this, i stated that i did not want to debate whether any action against Iran's government is "moral" or "legal" because that can be discussed in another thread.

fine? everything clear?

Jesus, if you don't want to answer the questions or debate the topic at hand why be asshole and spew bullshit anyway???

Hmmm... so far I am the only one to actually give a straightforward post on the topic provided. Thats funny...

Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons when their rather unfriendly neighbour does? It has also got the US running around shooting up the middle-east with a policy of hair trigger preemption. Iran is relatively non-aggressive; she has not made the foreign interventions of countries like the US or Iraq, keeping largely to itself since the revolution. I would like to suggest that Iran possessing nuclear weapons would add to the stability of the middle east by discouraging US intervention and encouraging Israel to quell regional tensions by withdrawing from palestine.

I agree with Voodoo child. Pakistan is the world's only muslim country to have nuclear weapons and it has its hands full with India. Iran "going" nuclear is probably going to stabilize the situation in the ME. Iran is a democracy. The fact is, its just not on the western concept of democracy.

apparently, Clockwood and maybe Odin'Izm, are the only ones who can read.

i give up....

and this,
Iran is a democracy. The fact is, its just not on the western concept of democracy.

the people are free to choose in Iran but their choices have to be approved before and after they are made by the Guardian Council. some democracy, eh?
and executing retarded 16 year old girls for being raped ("seducing men")? LET'S GIVE THEM NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

the people are free to choose in Iran but their choices have to be approved before and after they are made by the Guardian Council. some democracy, eh?

Don't play dunce. In America the choises are screened beforehand by the political partys, and afterward by the electoral college.

the political parties choose their candidate. sounds pretty democratic to me.
and the electoral college? tell me, does Iran have the electoral college? a Republican system would be infinitely better than what they have there now.

to tell you the truth at first i thought you were sarcastic.. to compare Iran's system to US's system. and you don't have to compare everything to US. try...Sweden for example

SpyMoose and Verdatel proved you wrong. Go ahead and dislike Iran for whatever legitimate reason, but don't do it for false reasons as you mentioned as it only makes you look a fool. Unfortunately most bias people have against Iran, or anywhere in the ME, is the spoon-fed BS they hear from propoganda news all around us.

I also love the power people think a democracy is. As Stalin once said, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." Democracy and freedom isn't what makes America America, it's capitalism. Unfortunately it's money what gives people freedom.

- N

I could visit... but only if I wanted to be shot on sight.
American=Infidel.
You are saying that tongue in cheek aren't you? In the words of John McEnroe, "you cannot be serious!"
True, on my single visit there three or four years ago there was a large illustrated sign in the baggage collection hall at Tehran airport that we had translated for us - it did indeed read "Death to all infidels". (Notice the all. That includes Brits of a non-islamic persuasion.) However, I was greeted by nothing but courtesy by everyone I met from engineers and businessmen, to taxi drivers and waiters, from government officials to private citizens.
.
You may have noticed that it is not unusual for there to be a disjunction between the declarations of governments and the mood of a country.

"1. maybe the people like their government if they didnt a revolution would have changed it."
Oh like when the ruling Religious party wouldnt allow the moderates to vote or have canidates?? The ruling fundies run the show and thats that. Hard to change things when A: You cant do it democraticly and B: The fundies control the Military. Good luck with a peacefull change there.

"Don't play dunce. In America the choises are screened beforehand by the political partys, and afterward by the electoral college."

Well I wouldnt go that far, but you are speaking at the Federal level, lets not forget about the States.

As far as what would Iran do:
Well if they have the bomb, nothing, because we wont do anything. Then they would probably Nuke Isreal the first chance they got.

If they dont have the bomb:
The would immediate declare some Holy War against the U.S. Their Military would take a crap. They would be destroyed Militarily in a heart beat. Now im not saying we should or would go in and actually invade. If anything we would just cripple them and destroy their Nuclear facilities.

I hate to say it but I do forsee a Military conflict on the horizon. Iran will not back down and the U.S. and Isreal willl not allow a country with a sworn goal of Destroying the U.S. and Isreal to have nukes.

And no, the world doesnt hate Muslims. The world hates crazy fundie Muslims, just like the world hates Crusaders, and hard line "who needs peace" Jews.

well said.
finally a normal response btw.

one thing i'm concerned about though, the Iranian gov't keeps talking about "assymetrical war". i.e. Iran is not going to fight fire with fire. they would instead try to blow up strategic military and civilian targets in the US with small terrorist cells.
they've already got a fullscale psychological warfare going on, with their defense officials talking about targeting the 6000 nuclear warheads on American soil.

in the past when their interests were attacked (the head of Hizballah was assassinated in the early 90's) they responded by blowing up the Israeli embassy and a Jewish community center in Argentina the next year. that was on a small scale. now, imagine Teheran is attacked... the response will be 20 blown up embassies and some massive "martyrdom" operations inside the US. and of course just as Saddam did, the Ayatollahs will attack Israeli interests, and who knows where that will lead.

by the way, consider how hard it is for cave-dwelling terrorists to organize an operation. now, imagine you have an entire country's intelligence apparatus, funds, media control, and all these tools at your disposal to wage "assymterical" warfare. how are you going to fight thAt? I hope Rumsfeld has a plan...

I was reading this thread, and I couldn’t believe Oth said this about Crazy’s post: “well said.
finally a normal response btw.”, I am sorry but that was response was straight from Goebells play book of stereotypes and buzz words. If you think that is a “normal response” then the economist obviously are a bunch of pot smoking idiots. To be fair a attack against Iran would do more harm then good, because relative to Iran’s power in the region she has been tame. First off if Iran really wanted to she could probably create another civil war in Lebanon with Hezbollah and if Israel were to attack Iran, Hezbollah could in theory shell Haifa with rockets although the IAF would neutralize that threat, the mere fact that it exists causes problems. Secondly Iran now has the capability to attack Israel with warheads, the Arrow missile system may shoot down some missiles but I doubt they will all of them, and if Iran does indeed have the upgraded Shahab-III-B missile with GPS guidance supposedly, Israel’s Dimona facility is well within the line of fire. Iran could within the first 12 hours strike at US bases in the Persian Gulf with her Fatah missiles which are very accurate from all the reports I’ve read. Iran with her super silent Kilo submarines can also cause havoc in the Strait of Hormuz and disrupt the international oil trade, and the price of oil would go up possibly breaking the $60-70 barrier, and Iran would probably stop exporting her oil causing there to be a oil crisis and international recession is possible. Another possible and I would suggest likely is a mini-invasion of Iraq by Iranian special forces to bolster the insurgency against the United States, and Iran would probably try her best to radicalize Iraqi Shi’a by insisting that they should help fight with their brothers against a common enemy. Also the attack against Iran would most surely bolster the regime. So that is imo just some of the repercussions of an Iranian attack.

i said "finally normal response" because finally somebody expressed an opinion regarding the topic at hand -- something that most responses lacked.

your worst-case-scenario analysis is, for the first time, right on, although it is the worst-case scenario, and will most likely (hopefully) not happen. i heard a month ago one of the US DoD people rejecting an actual attack because he didn't want to create a spike in nationalism. it would be too easy for the Iranian regime to create propaganda out of this and use it to their advantage, recruiting shahids from all over the place.

if you haven't noticed, for the next 2 weeks there wil be navy and other training exercises being conducted btwn the US and Israel, on Israeli territory. some involve use of patriot missiles or something like that. they said it's a periodic exercise conducted once in 2 years. but i haven't heard of it 2 years ago, and it's a nice coincidence, along with the sale of 500 bunker-busters and the F-16Is to Israel.

months ago some analysts said that a strike on the Iranian nuke facilities by Israel will be orcastrated in February-March. it seemed like wild speculation to me, especially since it's fairly early in the diplomatic process still.. but all these US-Israel maneuvers make it seem like they're preparing for it.

you don't think that there would actually be an open bombing campaign against Iran, do you? i mean, at least as a 1st step

Unde,

Do you really want Iran to have nukes? Lets be real here, the Isrealies are a tad bit nervous concerning their neighbors and have a tendency to be a bit trigger happy.

Your senerio, while valid, doesnt address any real Military action. So hezbolah sends some rockets, big deal. Not the main game. Tehran in flames is the concern here. Oil at $70 a barrel?? Good. I hope it happens. Maybe we could get off the Middle East tit and develop some real alternative fuels.

On a side note, what happens to the Middle East when the develped world vastly reduces its need for oil?? Will anyone care?? Would we put up with all the B.S. if we didnt need oil??

On a side note, what happens to the Middle East when the develped world vastly reduces its need for oil?? Will anyone care?? Would we put up with all the B.S. if we didnt need oil??

If we didnt oil there would be no shit to put up with as the middle east would need no meens of protection eg: missiles, because there would be no intrest in their territory.

Sleepwalking to disaster in Iran (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1B5FCF4A-FBF6-443A-93A9-5E37C43FDE0B.htm) The Bush administration was keen on achieving some semblance of stability in Iraq before June 2005, I was told.

When I asked why that date, the source dropped the bombshell: because that was when the Pentagon was told to be prepared to launch a massive aerial attack against Iran, Iraq's neighbour to the east, in order to destroy the
Iranian nuclear programme.

Why June 2005?, I asked. 'The Israelis are concerned that if the Iranians get their nuclear enrichment programme up
and running, then there will be no way to stop the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. June 2005 is seen as the decisive date.' I'm really curious if ANYTHING happens this June. But, I really just don't think so . . . ..