US "War" with Iran

[DukeRustfield]

Getting the US people/voters to agree to commit to military action against another country usually takes some time. So politicans who want to do it begin early. They feed the media stories that they repeat and everyone starts worrying about whatever the politicians want them to worry about.

My parents, who live near Washington and have seen this a lot, I remember commenting before the Iraq invansion that, "the media is really pushing on this, so I suspect we're going to invade them regardless of what the UN says."

The same noise is going up about Iran now. They are making the case that Iran is playing proxy war against the US inside Iraq and therefore, it might be necessary to do something more aggressive to Iran directly. From a political standpoint, it would be disastrous to invade the country, so I don't think that will happen. But there's lots of other things that can be done, some of which, could make it more uncomfortable in your country. I don't think Ahmadinejad is the kind of guy who would back down, so if he was pressed, I could see him meddling/pushing much harder against all his neighbors.

I'm curious if you all have heard any similar things there.

[Suney]

What Putin said the other day is making more and more sense.

I live in Australia, but even I'm hearing the exact same thing.

[Kibitzer]

They are making the case that Iran is playing proxy war against the US inside Iraq and therefore, it might be necessary to do something more aggressive to Iran directly.

Duke ... do a little research about what is going on in Iran today - pay particular attention to their economy, political unrest and what the people think. The US is doing plenty to Iran and it is not going to involve war. Try to ignore Limbaugh and Hannity. Take a closer look at the economy of Iran and odd as it may seem ... their energy problems.

You are correct about one thing - Lebanon or more particularly Hezbollah may well be involved as will Syria. As usual, Lebanon is caught in the middle of the whole mess. About the only thing you can say that is good is that (so far) the US is not giving in to the "deal" that Syria wants. Syria will trade help in Iraq if the US will "give" Lebanon back to them. Looks like that is not going to happen and isn't it disgusting that nations can talk about "giving" or "taking" other nations as part of some kind of "deal". The internet is a great help in stopping this sort of nonsense. Back in the old days - it was all under the table, back room "deals" and it is almost impossible to keep that sort of thing out of the public eye today. I just love the internet! The age of instant information.

The news is that KSA made it clear to Iran that if the "opposition" toppled the government in Lebanon by force that they would consider that Iran had attacked KSA ... kinda cooled things right down ..... until the terrorist bombings of the buses.

[FPM addict]

"The news is that KSA made it clear to Iran that if the "opposition" toppled the government in Lebanon by force that they would consider that Iran had attacked KSA ... kinda cooled things right down ..... until the terrorist bombings of the buses"

Kibitzer,

So I understand that the opposition is behind the bombings of the buses??

[Kibitzer]

Originally Posted by FPM addict

"The news is that KSA made it clear to Iran that if the "opposition" toppled the government in Lebanon by force that they would consider that Iran had attacked KSA ... kinda cooled things right down ..... until the terrorist bombings of the buses"

Kibitzer,

So I understand that the opposition is behind the bombings of the buses??

I have no idea who is did the bombings and I've actually seen almost no speculation that the opposition was behind it ..... we can only "guess" and the speculation has gotten pretty ugly as speculation often does. It has always been my belief that the International Investigation is essential because (for whatever reason) Lebanese investigators have not been able to either get people to talk to them or are just incompetent.

I doubt that Hezbollah is behind the bombings - they certainly have the knowledge but I just don't think they would do it to what could have 50 innocent civilian Lebanese. My last words had nothing to do with the opposition ... just that things "heated" up again.

The first part of my statement is along the lines of "rumor" as I did not see this written in a credible news article. I usually avoid posting these things which is probably always best. I know that when someone posts something and there is no "proof" and it's "I heard this" or "my cousin's friend's brother said that" that poster loses all credibility and does not regain it.

[Aoune]

I thought I would remind you of what I wrote a couple of weeks ago. I had written this also 3 months ago in a different thread with different words.

http://www.lfpm.org/forum/showthread...ighlight=aoune

[taifoon]

Originally Posted by DukeRustfield

The same noise is going up about Iran now. They are making the case that Iran is playing proxy war against the US inside Iraq and therefore, it might be necessary to do something more aggressive to Iran directly. From a political standpoint, it would be disastrous to invade the country, so I don't think that will happen. But there's lots of other things that can be done, some of which, could make it more uncomfortable in your country. I don't think Ahmadinejad is the kind of guy who would back down, so if he was pressed, I could see him meddling/pushing much harder against all his neighbors.

I'm curious if you all have heard any similar things there.

Here's some more data Duke: By definition, no democracy will ever be able to bomb its will through and upon others. Own built-in system emergency brakes will sooner than later prohibit that. This is why the US ultimatly failed in vietnam, will most probably fail in Iraq and Afghanistan and guaranteed in Lebanon in its attempt to impose what majorities in these countries may reject. Doesn't take a genius to understand that it would have to exterminate more than half a certain objecting population in order for any power to be able later on to lay back and enjoy full satisfaction about what it achieved.

The July war was an attempt to annihilate HA and was a prelude to what USA is preparing for Iran; failing to accomplish that objective in addition to the iraqui objectives, should be annoying for the non-lunatic part of decision making people over there. Perhaps raise some kind of red-alert that this approach is becoming more disastrous and can not be tolerated as "collateral damage" of an ongoing foreign doctrine.
Eventhough Bush seems confident his tough push may now have brought North Korea to its knees and forced its disarmament, matters in the gulf and ME could differ hugely.
While aplpying same tactics on Iran (they don't starve in Iran you know) would be fatal, it will also probably be a much tougher task for Mr Cowboy this time to market an Iranian war enterprise knowing he already is facing more and more domestic opposition.
Of course unless another 9/11 comes in handy ;)

Originally Posted by Kibitzer

The news is that KSA made it clear to Iran that if the "opposition" toppled the government in Lebanon by force that they would consider that Iran had attacked KSA ... kinda cooled things right down ..... until the terrorist bombings of the buses.

Reguarding the KSA, the above bolded sentence gives the impression that KSA, as the owner of Lebanon ( of course you meant only its government) is raising its tone and pressuring Iran to pressure HA not to bring down its lebanese pawns..
I may have beleived you, if it was KSA versus Bahrein or 3oman or even Yemen.. But bossing the iranians?.. Even when shielded with the americans and the israelis, Sinioras saudi dudes, whose butts sit on explosives themselves, can only ask kindly a country like Iran.

Besides, the iranians already told them: Have some shirini dudes, we will do our best, but we can't guarantee you anything. You see, we may be able to exercise some pressure on HA, but it seems on this one they are unnegotiable.
How about you try with your own lebanese butts: After all, it seems you own them more than we do HA.

[jiugiusti]

I don't know if the US will attack Iran or not, but I guess there will be some internal fights in iran.. you know, bombing each (different iranian militar groups) others with the help of a foreign hand; it could be american, but it could be russian and chinese as well. The world (israel and allies) security is at hand...!! (smiles)

[lebluv]

Originally Posted by jiugiusti

I don't know if the US will attack Iran or not, but I guess there will be some internal fights in iran.. you know, bombing each (different iranian militar groups) others with the help of a foreign hand; it could be american, but it could be russian and chinese as well. The world (israel and allies) security is at hand...!! (smiles)

U mean "u wish"

in red...whenever u say somethin bas about USA u try to appologize in a way or another...by adding russia or china...


****.

[Kibitzer]

Originally Posted by taifoon

Reguarding the KSA, the above bolded sentence gives the impression that KSA, as the owner of Lebanon ( of course you meant only its government) is raising its tone and pressuring Iran to pressure HA not to bring down its lebanese pawns..
I may have beleived you, if it was KSA versus Bahrein or 3oman or even Yemen.. But bossing the iranians?.. Even when shielded with the americans and the israelis, Sinioras saudi dudes, whose butts sit on explosives themselves, can only ask kindly a country like Iran.

Besides, the iranians already told them: Have some shirini dudes, we will do our best, but we can't guarantee you anything. You see, we may be able to exercise some pressure on HA, but it seems on this one they are unnegotiable.
How about you try with your own lebanese butts: After all, it seems you own them more than we do HA.

As I said - this is not a "report" with documentation which is really the only kind that should have any validity ... don't you agree?

That said - my "understanding" is (from a variety of sources) that the talk KSA had with Iran indicated that IF Iran had any shall we say "persuasive power" with Hezbollah it would be in Iran's best interest to urge no violence.( I find it interesting that Prince Bandar was in Iran on Jan 23)
- why would Iran care?

The "word" is that KSA can afford to lower the price of oil substantially and IF that were to happen ... KSA would lose many millions of $ but can handle it economically ...... Iran cannot. Iran is already in financial straits and oil is almost their entire economy.

US Vice President Dick Cheney visit with King Abdullah on November 25th, was brief, lasting only a few hours before he flew back to Washington.
Cheney might have asked King Abdullah to use his considerable influence in the oil markets to knock prices lower, to put a squeeze Iran’s troubled economy, which depends on crude oil sales for 95% of its foreign exchange earnings and 50% of government spending. Crude oil is the key weapon in the battle between Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE, aligned with the United States, against the “Oil Axis” of Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. The Persian Gulf Oil kingdoms fear the emergence of a Tehran-led axis linking Iran, Iraqi Shiites, Syria, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Palestinian Hamas in Gaza, and Islamic militants linked to al Qaeda trying to topple the Saudi royal family.

Tehran spends $20 billion to $30 billion on heating oil and gasoline subsidies per year, costing the government roughly 15% of Iran’s GDP. Ahmadinejad was elected promising to bring oil revenues to every family, eradicate poverty and tackle unemployment.

But Ahmadinejad has failed to meet those promises. Instead, inflation in Iran according to various estimates is galloping ahead at 15% to 30%, and the jobless rate among men below 30 years old is at 20 percent. Anticipating a possible US blockade of gasoline imports in the next stage of economic warfare, Tehran has already said it will start rationing gasoline as of March 23rd.

The price of oil is something KSA can control to a certain extent and it is only one of the "problems" Iran is dealing with today. I take all this as a good sign, with hope that the west and the other oil nations will be able to fight the "war" with Iran with something other than bombs, missiles. troops or nuclear warheads. Sounds like a better deal to me.