BF2S Forums So what's the 'Plan' when Iran ignores international sanctions?

Not a lot methinks, and I doubt any action will be taken under UN auspices.

CameronPoe wrote:

Very hard to tell given that the US is bogged down in the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan. Military action is unlikely: the whole region would be set ablaze with the US having to fight insurgents in Iraq at the same time as possibly taking bombardments of Iranian missiles, artillery and possibly chemical weapons from across the border (into both Iraq and Afghanistan). Syria would chip in on the side of Iran. If Israel chipped in on the side of the US then ALL arab nations would then chip in on the side of Iran. No amount of nukes would prevent the US from taking a pretty heavy kicking given logistical problems in said situation and the wide spread of enemy forces. I guess it'll just amount to sanctions and another stupid 'oil for food' type deal.

Cameron, if we ever decide to kick some ass, nothing but ash will be left.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=640093#p640093

Masques wrote:

Nothing. And the US won't do anything. It's impossible for Israel to neutralize any Iranian programs (if the US can't Israel definitely can't).

Uh, how is it impossible?

Lisik wrote:

Harmor wrote:

what next?

I just watched that entire video. Very informative.

Harmor wrote:

So when Iran ignores international sanctions implemented by the Security Council, what next?

The UN will keep sanctioning them, while they stockpile and ready there weapons. Then it will be too late. We will see the first mushroom cloud over the ME, Just enough to destroy Isreal. Then we sit back and say " we told you so".

arabeater wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

I don't know. Why not do the same thing the US does when Israel ignores international sanctions? Give them loads of military aid and turn a blind eye to them developing nukes.

So your saying that the US should just let Israel defend themselves against all of the Middle East by themselves?

Just try and put yourself into the shoes of an everyday Israeli, knowing that every country around you wants you dead and basically you know the only thing keeping you alive is an alliance with the US which deters those countries from invading/bombing your country into the stoneage. Personally I feel sorry for those people having to deal with that shit on a daily basis. However I dont agree with how the Israeli government deals with Palestine, but you cant blame a fews mistakes on an entire country. Example: USA. Great country with Bad leaders. But thats just my opinion.

Absolutely. The US have backed Israel through all the attrocities they have commited, including ones prior to the formation of Israel as a state. They acknowledged and supported the Zionist aggressive immigration and economic expansion as well as terror policies against the Palestians during the early stages of the 20th century.

It is because of US backing that the state of Israel came into existence at all, illegally. The entire US/Israel relationship for the last century has been a policy of unconditional support despite the most illegal behaviour any country has displayed.

Bertster7 wrote:

Absolutely. The US have backed Israel through all the attrocities they have commited, including ones prior to the formation of Israel as a state. They acknowledged and supported the Zionist aggressive immigration and economic expansion as well as terror policies against the Palestians during the early stages of the 20th century.

It is because of US backing that the state of Israel came into existence at all, illegally. The entire US/Israel relationship for the last century has been a policy of unconditional support despite the most illegal behaviour any country has displayed.

You guys complain non-stop about Israel and its Zionist agenda like we've never heard it before. We could argue all day about whether or not the formation of their state was legal bringing up crap from over the last thousand years, but that is not what this debate is about. The fact of the matter is that Iran has proclaimed Israel's complete destruction. That alone opens the door for an Israeli first strike. With the amount of complaining you people do over of Bush, Blair, or any other Western world leader, I find it surprising that there isn't nearly as much for a leader who actually proclaimed the annihilation of a country. Does it not concern you that this type of person is also developing a nuclear weapon? Now, addressing the debate topic, if Iran continues on its path I think an Israeli attack is inevitable, but I don't think war will break out. Simply put, Iran and its allies have nothing that can stand up to Israel. Ahmadinejad is crazy and old-minded, but not stupid.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-11-20 15:06:54)

I believe Iran would hand us our asses if we invaded.  Period.  It would make Iraq's warfare look like a G-rated video game.  If we nuke..then we lost..and we'd be destroying a hell of a lot more than Iranians and others down the jet stream from the fallout.

If they dont' resopnd to sanctions, then who cares.  I think they should be left alone militarily because the only way to improve what's happening there lies with the Iranian people.  They need an internal revolution to unseat their current one.  Maybe we should get good at international propaganda!  We're experts at it here, might as well try it over there! Maybe add some blow guns and poison darts, and voilá..spreading freedom the right way! lol

IRONCHEF wrote:

I believe Iran would hand us our asses if we invaded.  Period.  It would make Iraq's warfare look like a G-rated video game.  If we nuke..then we lost..and we'd be destroying a hell of a lot more than Iranians and others down the jet stream from the fallout.

I think you have invasion confused with occupation. Occupations, as shown through history, usually fail. We defeated Iraq's military with ease in both wars. The occupation is where we are losing. An invasion is a totally different scenario.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-11-20 15:18:12)

arabeater wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

I believe Iran would hand us our asses if we invaded.  Period.  It would make Iraq's warfare look like a G-rated video game.  If we nuke..then we lost..and we'd be destroying a hell of a lot more than Iranians and others down the jet stream from the fallout.

I think you have invasion confused with occupation. Occupations, as shown through history, usually fail. We defeated Iraq's military with ease in both wars. The occupation is where we are losing. An invasion is a totally different scenario.

Yea I think he is mistaken. An invasion of Iran Blitzkrieg style would smash the Iranian defenses in a matter of a few weeks at most. I was involved in the Iraq invasion and was controlling the links for the predator drones, so I know what i'm talking about. Iran does have a more sophisticated military than Iraq did but I have no worries about them "handing us our asses" as you call it. I would say that we would smash the majority of Irans defenses before we even stepped foot on Iranian soil. Thats pretty much all I can legally say about that.

I'm sure it would work brilliantly. Just like the assault on Lebanon and all the other ongoing wars in the middle east.

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Also, the U.S. can't neutralize the Iranian programs diplomatically. If they excercised the military option, it would be a much different story. I think you need to do a little research on Iran's military capability. In comparison to Israel and the West, they have nothing.

We don't even know definitively where Iran's programs are located and from where are the troops going to materialize to accomplish the task of getting rid of Iran's faclilities?

We can bomb but that's only effective to a point. I'm sure they've learned from Iraq's experience with Osirak to build redundancy in their programs. Add to that the problems of terrain and likely location of underground facilities and the difficulties of the job increase exponentially. The US experience with "Shock and Awe" and Israel's experience recently in Lebanon should prove instructive on the limits of an air campaign. Those two campaigns were even directed against known targets and were largely ineffective.

Israel is a non-entity in this discussion for the reasons in that post I linked. They are hamstrung by a lack of decent relations with surrounding countries and the only two that they do have relatively good relations with are not going to allow their airspace used for such an operation. As I said previously, Israel is certainly a competent military force, definitely more so than that of its neighbors, but it has clear limits exemplified notably by Osirak (re: power projection) and Lebanon (re: air strikes).

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

I'm sure it would work brilliantly. Just like the assault on Lebanon and all the other ongoing wars in the middle east.

How is it like the assault on Lebanon? Israel was not fighting a standing army such Iran's. The other ongoing wars in the Middle East are occupations, not conventional warfare. Do you think before you post....ever?

You think any sort of war on Iran would not result in a guerilla warfare scenario? If not you're sadly misguided.

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

I believe Iran would hand us our asses if we invaded.  Period.  It would make Iraq's warfare look like a G-rated video game.  If we nuke..then we lost..and we'd be destroying a hell of a lot more than Iranians and others down the jet stream from the fallout.

I think you have invasion confused with occupation. Occupations, as shown through history, usually fail. We defeated Iraq's military with ease in both wars. The occupation is where we are losing. An invasion is a totally different scenario.

True, but then we haven't seen our military invade something as powerful as Iran.

In '91, we staged half a million + troops in Saudi Arabia and in Kuwait to run out a starving army who surrendered easily.  Most of which were forced to fight, some (rep. guard and probably some regular army) simply obeyed their orders, and possibly some were there for a cause.  With Iran, they are so fervent, so dedicated, and so full of "good cause" that it will not only give our invading force a run for it's money..i think we'd be repelled. 

We would end up bombing like mad, maybe losing a few birds here and there..and we'd be twice as paranoid invading iran as we were liberating kuwait so we'd be trying to mass at least 800,000 troops somewhere (saudi is too far, Iraq and afghanistan are no option..so that leaves the water for the staging.

I have a friend who's dad was a colonel in the Shah's army until the revolution in '79.  I've heard stories of the mindset and training they have and it's something you'd never imagine.  Watching Ted Koppel last night when he aired his visit to Iran, they showed a little of what the Iranians would dish out and make no mistake, this is no ragtag army or defenseless people. 

I side with the majority of newspeople, politicians, and pundits in saying there is NO good military strategy we could employ in Iran.  And man to man, I bet they'd win...but that's just me believing "the cause" is what makes you win or lose.