Is Iran Headed for War?

I don`t think so......Bush may be an Idiot with a capital I -- but he is not insane.......





or is he...?

Isololation is not Iran`s fear. It`s policy is deliberate confrontation, as evidenced by presidential remarks about Israel etc. Iran wants escalation, not compromise.

Most likely scenario is aerial shock & awe from the 5th fleet based in Bahrain. I doubt any neighbouring nation will support US war initiative by lending its land resources including Pak, Afghan and Turkey, since Iran has good relations with all of them.

The only conceivable counter-measure available to Iran is blockade of the the strait of Hormuz, by sinking a few vessels in the only sea route through which oil from Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, as well as most of United Arab Emirates can be transported, and force US hand in going even further or backing down. What would be the US alternatives in that case?

#2 by zeemax

[I doubt any neighbouring nation will support US war initiative by lending its land resources including Pak, Afghan and Turkey, since Iran has good relations with all of them.]

I don`t know about Turkey, but I`m sure both Afghanistan and Pakistan will not be in a position to say no. Pakistan made noises about not allowing the US to use its bases in 2001 too, but in the end had to agree. Hamid Karzai owes his very existence to the US, so no way can he refuse permission.

[The only conceivable counter-measure available to Iran is blockade of the the strait of Hormuz, by sinking a few vessels in the only sea route through which oil from Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, as well as most of United Arab Emirates can be transported, and force US hand in going even further or backing down.]

The US will first look to cripple the Iranian navy so it is not in a position to enforce a blockade of the strait of Hormuz. Then it will look to go after land-based missile positions that can target tankers. Only then will it go further.

#3 by harish_hyd

Harish. I agree when you say ``but I`m sure both Afghanistan and Pakistan will not be in a position to say no. Pakistan made noises about not allowing the US to use its bases in 2001 too, but in the end had to agree. Hamid Karzai owes his very existence to the US, so no way can he refuse permission.`` Here other factors come into play:

1)War-on Terrorism: Pakistan could get away with it, albeit with a lot of internal criticism and upheaval, due to its stated `common interest against terrorism` which had effected Pakistan too. This does not hold against Iran. Any attack on Iran will not a war against terrorism but a war to protect Israel from merelay a perceived future threat. Noone in Pakistan will buy that. The Government will immediately topple.

2) Regional affinity: Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran have been historically and culturally close and neighbourly, with all excesses forgotten for that certain kinship. The people of either country will not accept for USA which is not and never has been in their common interests. You see, USA will leave the region sooner or later, but these three countries cannot re-write their geography.

3)Trade: Iran has extremely close trade relations with Afghanistan. Farsi (or its version Dari) is more widely spoken in AF than any other language helping the trade. The cultures other than Pushtoon are identical. Karzai neither represents all of AF nor in control of it. His fate will be the same or worse than Musharraf.

Having said the above, my assumption is that USA will leave the region sooner or later. This is however all wrong but if it has plans to stay forever.

... cripple the Iranian navy so it is not in a position to enforce a blockade of the strait of Hormuz....

I am not talking about Iranian navy blockading. I am talking about Iran sinking a few of its own vessels in the strait. There are only two shipping lanes in it which are each just a mile across.

#4 by zeemax

[Pakistan could get away with it, albeit with a lot of internal criticism and upheaval, due to its stated `common interest against terrorism` which had effected Pakistan too. This does not hold against Iran.]

On the contrary, I think Paki support to the US invasion of Afghanistan had more potential to destabilize the Paki government considering the cultural linkages that Pushtuns on both sides of the Durand line enjoy. With Iran, Pakistan`s links are not so much cultural as historical and except for some ties between the Baloch in both countries, I don`t think it adds up to much. Except for Pakistan`s Shias, I don`t think anyone would get worked up. The Sunnis won`t care because their mosques and seminaries are funded by the Wahabbi Saudis who would be rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of an attack on their enemy Iran.

[Any attack on Iran will not a war against terrorism but a war to protect Israel from merelay a perceived future threat.]

It would have been seen that way had Iran kept silent. But Ahmedinejad has been shouting about his country`s nuclear ambitions from the rooftops, so the US has a very legitimate excuse and I`m sure that is how it would be understood.

The author writes <<< Remember Russia. It was defeated because it was isolated completely. >>>

Not so, The SU decided to play the cat and mouse game defined for it by the US, a game rigged in favor of the US from the very start. The US had the head start and defined the neo-colonial world moreso than the soviets. The soviets were dumb enough to fall for this trap of imperialistic imitation of the US, and were outspent and outmanaged and outgunned in this game of imperialism (not communism or socialism). Isolation had nothing to do with this so-called `defeat` either.

#5 by harish_hyd

About your first point, yes it will be a lot more complicated. About your second, I already said Iran is looking to escalate, not compromise.

I am living far far from Iran. Boy it is all fun to watch on TV how precision bombs can strike targets with surgical accuracy. It is remarkable how a weapon of war released literally thousands of miles away can strike a flagpole with practically no collateral damage!

It would be fun to watch how this Iran problem is going to be resolved by rest of the world. I say, just wait and watch TV news - especially a glass of wine in hand after a nice evening meal.

#8 by kamath

That glass of wine and your TV is not likely to last much longer ...

There is one other possible ally against Iran. It is the rabid sunnis of Iraq. They hate Shias as much as they hate Amerians. They may decide to take care of Irani Shias first with America as tool before confronting the west with their kind of pure Islam. Stranger things than that have happened. Politics and relegion makes strange bedfellows.

Baghdad has taught Vietnam amnesiac Americans a lesson that they will not forget so soon -- to restart re-learning in Tehran --

the horrible consequences for European oil thru the gutted bottleneck of Hormuz will tie the hands of Haliburton`s Halaku Khan .......and our George of the Jungle -- and their Aipac tail wagging the dog`s dogs -- away from another of their demented bloody misadventures....period.

despite the de ja vu.....

there is another battle going on and that`s for the heart and mind of muslims, condi rice wanted to visit a mosque in blackburn (uk) i believe local muslims said she`s not welcomed, then she had a hour long meeting with local muslims, the battle has begun and its for the hearts and minds of moderate muslims.

Re: # 12-Condi is single..She wanted Nikah ceremony..with the Christian revert Abdur Rehman; another off-spring of media.
The local Muslims denied Condi the Masjid as Abdur Rehman has not yet arrived there as a political refugee.

Pakistan could support a war directed against Iran - with all the nice words uttered by our F.O because we have sold our skins to US for some billion dollars and pieces of junk from the US of A .
Our so-called `Leader- Prevez Mushraff` is in a stage where he would do whatever to save his presidency & power , even if he has to allow US forces stationed in Pakistan for a attack on Iran . Obviously, no one wants us to follow Irans foreign policy of isolation but a policy in which relations are not between two leaders ( Bush and Mush ) but relations are between two nations ( US and Pakistan ) and that too with equality and self-respect where if , in US airports Pakistans are asked to take there shoes off , US citizens should be asked to do the same in Pakistan , where if US forces come and attacks who-over inside our nation , we should go for them in Afghanistan or other bases - history has shown us that if you treat US as a equal partner they will be good to you & as soon as you treat them as masters they will ask to you lie down .
@ harish_hyd,
the sunnis, shiyas, christains, hindus - moderates,extremists, everyone will act same on any attack on Iran - reaction would be of extreme to every party involved -
and this is comming from a deobandi ..
cheers

Re: # 12 - THE LAARA FOR CONDI

Iran is asking for it. This war isn`t going to be like Iraq war for occupation. Just the destruction of its economy and nuclear infrastructure.

By the way, does any one have any doubt about Iran’s nuclear intentions?