News What are the potential consequences of occupying Iran?

[phcatlantis]

Chinese companies are using dollars to buy outright or buy into joint ventures in foreign companies.

In a word, so?

Troll on little man.

Lonely nights getting to you? Relax, buddy. We're all friends here.

 

[phcatlantis]

No. You tell us.

It's your argument, buddy. You know that remark you made about "selling Treasury Bills to China just to pay for Iraq." That is, after all, what we're talking about. So how about we cut the tantrum and get down to business like grown folk. M'kay?

 

[SOS2008]

It's your argument, buddy. You know that remarkably ignorant remark you made about "selling Treasury Bills to China just to pay for Iraq." That is, after all, what we're talking about. So how about we cut the tantrum and get down to business like grown folk. M'kay?

How about we do that? Since you are an expert economist and all...

To paraphrase a knowledgeable person currently living in China, as long as the U.S. does not default, China owns us, and if we do default, everyone owns us. If the U.S. defaults on T-bills, do you think a single country in the world would trade with us? And if there were no “petro dollars” who would sell oil to us? Considering U.S. consumption, the U.S. would become a third world nation.

Moving on…

For a while we have been told by the Greenspan Fed that M1 and M2 are more volatile and less useful indicators of what is happening with money supply, and that the M3 is the only other useful indicator. Under Ben Bernake, President Bush’s appointee to replace the retiring Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve announced it would discontinue reporting data on the broadest measure of the money supply, M3, effective March 23, 2006. (http://www.ny.frb.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed49.html)

Depositary institutions will no longer be required to report Eurodollar deposits and repurchase agreements. This is at the very least a downgrading of all of the money supply data. All this mystery does nothing but push people to the conclusion that something is being hidden.

Is Bernake set to devalue the currency even though it would mean dire consequences for the American standard of living? Gold has risen from US$400 to US$550 within a year.

I’m sure all this means nothing, so don’t worry your pretty little heads about it…

 

[SOS2008]

Okay, so where were we in the Hamas thread...oh yes...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurkyl

Why? I've never argued I'm sure Iran will fire on Israel.In order for it to be worth considering, it merely has to be a possibility -- even if the odds were as low as 5%, I would feel that it would be something that demands serious attention.

Perhaps not, but you also fail to consider which comes first, the chicken or the egg, and the percent chance that Israel will fire on Iran, or now on Hamas.

The Role of Israel

Since late 2004, Israel has been stockpiling US made conventional and nuclear weapons systems in anticipation of an attack on Iran. This stockpiling which is financed by US military aid was largely completed in June 2005. Israel has taken delivery from the US of several thousand "smart air launched weapons" including some 500 'bunker-buster bombs, which can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs.

The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113, can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html, see also http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris ).

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code= CH20060103&articleId=1714

After an unprovoked invasion of Iraq, and this kind of preparation, I can't imagine why Iran and the rest of the sane world might have fear of Israel and the U.S.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Okay, so where were we in the Hamas thread...oh yes...

Actually, this is the "Occupation of Iran" thread.

 

[SOS2008]

Actually, this is the "Occupation of Iran" thread.

Right - I was copying a section over from the Hamas thread (as I stated I would in that thread) because it belongs here. Sorry if it caused confusion.

 

[edward]

It's your argument, buddy. You know that remarkably ignorant remark you made about "selling Treasury Bills to China just to pay for Iraq." That is, after all, what we're talking about. So how about we cut the tantrum and get down to business like grown folk. M'kay?

No actually that is not what we were talking about. It is unfortunate that I did use the word just in that one sentence, but it is fact that we started selling T Bills to China concurrently with the planned invasion of Iraq. The: T bills to China to pay for Iraq scenario was played out widely in the news media. Perhaps you missed it. I picked it up while watching an interview with Warren Buffett, but then what the hell does he know? Right.

But again, T bills to China, was only a small part of my overall point.

One of my points was that China only needs to hold off on shipping consumer goods for several months and the American public will be in a total rage. Unless of course you believe that the American public is willing and able to do without the hundreds of products coming in tens of thousands of containers that arrive from China every week.

Do your realize that even the baby bottles used in this country are now made in China. How do you plan on explaining your rocket science economic theories to all of those angry mommies. Or go to Home Depot to buy a box of nails, oops you can't do that the nails are now made in China also.

You are greatly underestimating just how ingrained Chinese products have become in our everday lives.

Do you really think that we could get away with shortchanging them on what we owe? It is not going to happen without grave consequences on the home front.

And no more homework assignments please, I not at all impressed with your apparent need to be the intellectual superior being.

 

[jhe1984]

"IMHO that's why the only viable last-resort military option against Iran will have to be a bombing of the alleged nuclear production sites by the U.S. (NATO?)"

You are correct, however even this is extremely complex and not at all appealing for several reasons.

First of all, the Iranians are smart. They watched (in 1981, I think it was) as the Israeli Air Force took out Saddam's Osirak nuclear plant in Tuwaitah. The attack worked splendidly - the plant was more or less above ground and was not really hardened (I think it was still under construction), so the Israeli attack completely neutralized the plant - and Iraq's hopes of constructing nuclear apparati.

Watching this, the Iranians have gone to extreme steps to prevent this from happening. They have built multiple facilities, all of which are hardened, and the majority of which are below ground. In short, cruise missiles and bunker busters are not sufficient enough to make sure the plants and all the nuclear material has been destroyed.

This means that any airstrike would have to be a massive one and a sustained large-scale airstrike requires 1) complete air superiority - no defensive fighters in the sky, no SAMs or radar posts 2) air-to-air refueling and 3) enormous pay load packages. Number 1 alone is enough to significantly halt any plans - it took several thousand special forces, several hundred assault helicopters and jets, and several weeks to take out Iraq's air defense network in the first Gulf War - which is the closest approximation to what we'd be up against in Iran.

And so clearly everything is dependent on the US. No other country has the military hardware and variety of arsenal to accomplish this mission. Plus, the United States has one hugely significant tool that can, in part, negate a lot of these difficulties: the B2 stealth bomber. If we trust their stealthiness, and we are prepared to lose several - no small if's - it is conceivable that a concerted surprise campaign of B2's could signifcantly damage the targets. But again nothing is guaranteed. And also, if we lose a couple of those B2's, in addition to the lives of their crewmen, we've also lost a lot of secrecy to reverse engineering processes of foreign nations. I'm not sure how much of a concern this is, but I'd imagine it's notable.

Now for the bad news. Iran is a HUGE country. That means we'd probably have to refuel in flight, which complicates things even if its over friendly airspace - Iraq or Afg. KC-10s are hardly stealthy and almost any Iranian fighter pilot could conceivably trail one to a B2 - since the airdefense networks of Iraq and Afg are non-existent mostly: actually I take that back, I bet we'd love for an Iranian fighter to stray over Iraq.

More bad news. 135,000 of the US' best soldiers live right across the road in camps the size of small cities. It is not hard for the Iranians to launch several hundred medium range ballistic missiles back at us and kill up to 30,000 of our guys, not to mention Brits and the other nations still over there. Once that's over, then the weakened force would have to go out to on fire Shi'a neighborhoods where we've been drawing DOWN troops or adding Iraqis (same difference) and that have heretofor, exception an Najaf, stayed quiet. Moqtada al-Sadr has already said he will rise up in defense of Iran were it to be attacked. Al-Zarqawi who himself ran an AQ training camp in Herat, Afg near Iran in the 80s would be beside himself. He could attack the Iraqi Shi'a who would at this point attack back (their towns are in chaos anyway), thus drawing the country into a civil war - one which the US would perversely need to help the Sunni guerilla fighters to prevent Iran from dominating more real-estate. Yikes.

And you'll like this: our arsenal of weapons to attack hardened underground targets is limited. We've got a few different types of massive bunker busters - only a few of which could be dropped from the finite number of B2s - and that wouldn't guarantee beyond 70 or 80 percent at most complete destruction. All that adds up to is nuclear missiles being the most comprehensive option. I'd imagine that this is in no way currently ruled out. Yikes again. But then you've got an eighth or so of the world's oil not only offline, but radioactive. As well as a radioactive US NAVY and possibly a radioactive southern Iraq - depending on a couple factors.

And none of this is considering Iranian asymmetrical counterattacks, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc, which are equally unsettling.

Yet staring us in the face is the option of Israel launching dozens of nuclear missiles over our 135,000 soldiers and equipment towards Iran, still with the above setbacks.

All in all, the options are quite unappealing. Good luck, DoD, you've got your hands full with this one. As Senator McCain said a few weeks ago, that, barring diplomatic efforts, war with Iran is the best of a list of terrible options.

IMHO, the best solution would've been to snatch Senor Ahmadenijad when he visited the UN here in New York half a year ago. Of course, the UN would've officially disintegrated at the point so - wait, maybe two birds for the price of one with that one.
...Except for WFP, UNDP, and one or two others - I like them.

 

[alexandra]

"IMHO that's why the only viable last-resort military option against Iran will have to be a bombing of the alleged nuclear production sites by the U.S. (NATO?)"

You are correct, however even this is extremely complex and not at all appealing for several reasons...

Interesting points you make in your analysis, jhe1984. Also, I've just read this:

Iran warns of missile strike

Revolutionary Guard general puts West on notice not to interfere as Tehran presses ahead with nuclear power programme

Jason Burke, chief Europe correspondent
Sunday January 29, 2006
The Observer

Senior Iranian officials further raised tensions with the West yesterday, implicitly warning that Tehran would use missiles to strike Israel or Western forces stationed in the Gulf if attacked...

'The world knows Iran has a ballistic missile power with a range of 2,000km (1,300 miles),' General Yahya Rahim Safavi said on state-run television. 'We have no intention to invade any country [but] we will take effective defence measures if attacked.'...

For the moment, Iran's most powerful weapon is the Shahab-3 missile, which can strike more than 2,000km from their launch site, putting Israel and American forces in the Middle East in easy range. The Revolutionary Guard was equipped with the missiles in July 2003.

'We are producing these missiles and don't need foreign technology for that,' Safavi said pointedly in his speech to the nation. Iran announced last year that it had developed solid-fuel technology for missiles, a major breakthrough that increases their accuracy.

More: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1697505,00.html

It seems the Iranian leadership has, indeed, learned its lesson well: the US government, leading by example, has shown that 'might is right', and that the new game is 'survival of the fittest'. Where this will lead is anyone's guess - it's created a bit of a timebomb, it seems.

 

[vanesch]

It seems the Iranian leadership has, indeed, learned its lesson well: the US government, leading by example, has shown that 'might is right', and that the new game is 'survival of the fittest'. Where this will lead is anyone's guess - it's created a bit of a timebomb, it seems.

Yes, it is in fact quite ironic that, on the grounds of an invasion to avoid "someone to have (non-existent) WMD", all conditions (motivation, opportunity) have been created to establish exactly that, but this time, with real WMD!

 

[SOS2008]

I am posting an op-ed seen in another forum, because I feel it is very relevant to any and all discussions on Iran at this time:

The Gulf Between Us
By FLYNT LEVERETT
Published: January 24, 2006
Washington

AS the United States and its European partners consider their next steps to contain the Iranian nuclear threat, let's recall how poorly the Bush administration has handled this issue. During its five years in office, the administration has turned away from every opportunity to put relations with Iran on a more positive trajectory. Three examples stand out.

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, Tehran offered to help Washington overthrow the Taliban and establish a new political order in Afghanistan. But in his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush announced that Iran was part of an "axis of evil," thereby scuttling any possibility of leveraging tactical cooperation over Afghanistan into a strategic opening.

In the spring of 2003 … the Iranian Foreign Ministry sent Washington a detailed proposal for comprehensive negotiations to resolve bilateral differences. The document acknowledged that Iran would have to address concerns about its weapons programs and support for anti-Israeli terrorist organizations. …Unfortunately, the administration's response was to complain that the Swiss diplomats who passed the document from Tehran to Washington were out of line.

Finally, in October 2003, the Europeans got Iran to agree to suspend enrichment in order to pursue talks that might lead to an economic, nuclear and strategic deal. But the Bush administration refused to join the European initiative, ensuring that the talks failed.

Now Washington and its allies are faced with two unattractive options for dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue. …restricting Iranian oil sales, or a strike [that] could prove counterproductive...

Last week, the Saudi foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, suggested a way out of this impasse - one that might also help address other pressing challenges in the Persian Gulf. The Saudi prince noted that if Iranian nuclear weapons were deployed against Israel, they would kill Palestinians, and if they missed Israel, they would hit Arab countries…

While Prince Saud blamed Israel for starting a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, his implication that a nuclear-weapons-free Gulf might precede a regionwide nuclear-weapons-free zone is a nuanced departure from longstanding Arab insistence that regional arms control cannot begin without Israel's denuclearization. The United States and its partners should build on this idea and support the creation of a Gulf Security Council that would include Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states in the Gulf, as well as the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/opinion/24leverett.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

It would be a great idea to stop the nuclear arms race worldwide, not just in the ME. In any event, the first thing we need to do is rid ourselves of the Bush administration so we can proceed with this concept.

 

[Xenophon]

Personally, I believe the occupation of Iran presently would be a bad idea. While some memebers have pointed out that we (the US) have the capability to deploy for such an action, should we if not completely necessary? After all, you can drive a car in first gear on a highway, but it's not the wisest idea.

While Iran is dangerous, we should first concentrate on Iraq and Afghanistan before any invasion should proceed. The combat forces of Army/Marines are experienced, but that doesn't mean we should use them right away. Currently, the Army is reorganizing into more flexible unit structure (self managed brigades instead of divisions and more of them, etc.) and the current fronts are not helping. A peace, six months at least, would be optimal to allow the Army catch its breath, reorganize before another attack.

-Xenophon

 

[WarrenPlatts]

I had posted elsewhere that I suspected Iranian bloggers were being arrested based on the abruptness of their postings being terminated. Most bloggers, when they decide that they've had enough, post a final message saying the blog will be discontinued, and the reasons why. Here, apparently is confirmation of my suspicions.

So we need to invade Iran not merely to get their WMDs but also to spread freedom, and to rescue jailed bloggers.

 

[Cyrus]

That was a real stupid move on his part. He knew the risk he was taking.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

It's not stupid to stand up for your rights.

 

[Cyrus]

In Iran, one does not stand up for their rights, because the government puts them in jail and gives them lashes. With the way the government is over there right now, that was REALLY stupid of him.

 

[edward]

It's not stupid to stand up for your rights.

Speaking of rights, it is kind of ironic that clicking on this Iranian's Blog may make you a target of the NSA.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

You've got to assume that since foreigners post on PF, everything here is monitored by Echelon. Yet despite that, no one has been arrested yet for their blatantly treasonous posts.

BTW, where are the PF servers located? If Canada or anywhere else, they are fair game for the NSA. And if they're in the U.S., they're fair game for MI6 who will just share anything they learn with the Americans.

In Iran, one does not stand up for their rights, because the government puts them in jail and gives them lashes. With the way the government is over there right now, that was REALLY stupid of him.

All the more reason to invade, don't you think?

 

[Cyrus]

All the more reason to invade, don't you think?

No. If that were the case we would have to invade nearly half of the world. Revolution is an internal process. Thats why Iraq is going so horribly wrong (not the only reason). You can't force change on people, they must want it.

 

[Cyrus]

Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own destiny -- and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom. (Applause.)

That’s all bush had to say about Iran this time? "Different threats require different strategies." I think he has wised up on how to talk to Iran and was smart not to make statements like 'axis of evil.' He did not mention invading Iran, I wonder why...

 

[WarrenPlatts]

He has to break the news gradually.

 

[Cyrus]

He sure wasn't gradual when he was so gung ho before we went to Iraq. Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Syria, well free them all! Then we got in way over our heads on Iraq, and he had to realize having a strong military won't ensure victory. He knows he can't talk to Iran like that anymore.

Edit: I realize now that the first SOTU quote is an old one (2003) not the new one. Sorry about that.

 

[Cyrus]

The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon -- and that must come to an end. (Applause.) The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. (Applause.) America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.

Based on how he went about Ignoring the UN on Iraq, I don't think you can call it a rally to the world. Whats world support to him, another coalition of 30 small nations that give us a few hundred or a few thousand troops at most, and giving all the contracting jobs in Iraq to foreign companies.

Tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.

No, you don't Mr. President. You show little if any respect for Iran if you call them a country that is part of an 'axis of evil.'

"We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom."

Awww, but we don't want to win our own freedom, we want to be bombed into freedom! Pleaseee!? Are we no longer worthy of invasion for freedom now?

 

[edward]

You've got to assume that since foreigners post on PF, everything here is monitored by Echelon. Yet despite that, no one has been arrested yet for their blatantly treasonous posts

I am not worried about arrests of ordiinary people being made. There are far to many highly opinionated people posting to have space for them all.

If Bush's statements about NSA protectecting Americans are true, then it would be necessary for intel to gather everything vacuum style. Every possible form of communication including snail mail must be accounted for and scrutinized.
To limit it to e-mail and telephone calls would be a grave mistake.

On the other hand as I have stated in other threads, NSA and all of the other intel agencies are going to have so much data to sift through that they may well trip over their own feet. Which is exactly what happened before 9/11 when an FBI agent handed them a smoking gun, and it fell through the cracks.

 

[Hurkyl]

Revolution is an internal process.

Is it? I've heard this before, but do we really have reason to believe so? AFAIK, it's something that has only recently been tried.

You can't force change on people, they must want it.

Of course, wanting revolution is not synonymous with being able to carry out a revolution...

 

[Cyrus]

Is it? I've heard this before, but do we really have reason to believe so? AFAIK, it's something that has only recently been tried.

Yes. When its external, they call that an invation or a coup.

Of course, wanting revolution is not synonymous with being able to carry out a revolution...

When the majority of the people in a country want a change, nothing you can do will stop it. At some point, they will take up in arms. (Unless they are controlled by an opressive dictator)

 

[Hurkyl]

Yes. When its external, they call that an invation or a coup.

Fair enough -- but your post really doesn't make any sense given the literal interpretation. Looking back, I would still presume that you are saying that one cannot achieve effects similar to a revolution through external means, in which case, the spirit of my response still applies.

When the majority of the people in a country want a change, nothing you can do will stop it. At some point, they will take up in arms. (Unless they are controlled by an opressive dictator)

Yes, that is the crux of the matter.

 

[Cyrus]

Well, Iran is a democratic nation, so you can't use the same argument in Iran as in Iraq.

one cannot achieve effects similar to a revolution through external means, in which case, the spirit of my response still applies.

You can, but the people are not going to feel that it was their revolution. They will always have the fact that the US came in and invaded in the back of their minds. There are many countries that need freedom, but we don’t try to free all of them. So there is a very real reason why we are seen as having a hidden agenda. Iraq is in my mind a very turbulent example of this. The people want freedom, but they are not working together, and the country is in chaos, because they were not ready for freedom. You can't just make countries democratic overnight. This is why bush has to learn to watch his words when talking about Iran and invading for freedom and democracy. He should know better, Iran is already a democracy as I stated. Secondly, there have been for years demonstrations by students and citizens in Iran against the government. I think they are able enough to cause a revolution if they wanted to. Our invasion of Iran will blow up in our faces, in orders of magnitude worse than Iraq.

 

[Lisa!]

It's not stupid to stand up for your rights.

Aha! That's exactly what Iran government is doing right now. Iran has the right to use nuclear energy just like any other nation in the world!

BTW, man don't you think 'giving their freedom' and things like that aren't fation any more. Try to think up of other pretext. You can't fool people in the world by these stuff anymore.(nobody is going to believ you other than a few fool). What Iraqies people get? not only they didn't get freedom as their rights but also lots of them lost the right of living on this planet!

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Iran is a democratic nation.

HAHA! And the U.S. would still be a democracy if George Bush disqualified anyone he didn't like from running against him.

Secondly, there have been for years demonstrations by students and citizens in Iran against the government. I think they are able enough to cause a revolution if they wanted to.

Not while bloggers are being arrested for complaining about starving during Ramadan.

Aha! That's exactly what Iran government is doing right now. Iran has the right to use nuclear energy just like any other nation in the world!

And they also have to right to build nuclear bombs just like any other nation in the world!

BTW, man don't you think 'giving their freedom' and things like that aren't fa[sh]ion [sic] any more. Try to think up of other pretext. You can't fool people in the world by these stuff anymore.(nobody is going to believ you other than a few fool). What Iraqies people get?

That's not what the GI's returning from Iraq say. Talk to a few.