What are the scenarios for attacking Iran?

2006-11-20 18:15:11

#1

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6579|San Diego, CA, USA

Is something like this possible after the United States pulls out of Iraq? What are all the possible scenarios for attacking Iran?

With total international backing (aka Iraq 1991 war)?
With partial international backing (aka Iraq 2003 war)?
With no backing (US goes it alone)?
With Iran already having a nuke able to hit Israel?
With Iraq and Afganistan unwilling to stage troops in their country?
What about the price of oil?

2006-11-20 18:17:21

#2

TheOneAndOnlyX: Banned; +36|6405|Florida, USA

Let stop sending guys in and just bomb the fuck out of that towel head shithole

2006-11-20 18:17:56

#3

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6579|San Diego, CA, USA

One I forgot...using Special Forces to start a coup to oust the government from within.

2006-11-20 18:18:18

#4

Fancy_Pollux: Connoisseur of Fine Wine; +1,306|6677

The most realistic scenario would be an Israeli attack with US logistical support.

2006-11-20 18:19:25

#5

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6579|San Diego, CA, USA

Fancy_Pollux wrote:
The most realistic scenario would be an Israeli attack with US logistical support.

Wouldn't that bring even the moderate Muslim nations into the frey?

2006-11-20 18:21:40

#6

Fancy_Pollux: Connoisseur of Fine Wine; +1,306|6677

Harmor wrote:
Fancy_Pollux wrote:
The most realistic scenario would be an Israeli attack with US logistical support.
Wouldn't that bring even the moderate Muslim nations into the frey?

I don't think moderate Muslims support Ahmadinejad.

2006-11-20 18:27:39

#7

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6436|North Carolina

Iran shouldn't be attacked unless they do something really stupid. The ball is honestly in their court.

I'm more concerned about Iran's connections to Hezbollah than their nuke program.

2006-11-20 18:29:23

#8

Crash727: Member; +12|6673|NH, USA

Dust off our ICBM's and nuke 'em

2006-11-20 18:31:48

#9

Fancy_Pollux: Connoisseur of Fine Wine; +1,306|6677

Turquoise wrote:
Iran shouldn't be attacked unless they do something really stupid. The ball is honestly in their court.

From Israel's perspective they already had when they proclaimed that Israel should be wiped off the map. Israel sees a nuclear Iran as a serious threat, and, unlike the UN, they will act on it as they have in the past.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-11-20 18:32:30)

2006-11-20 18:35:24

#10

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6579|San Diego, CA, USA

Turquoise wrote:
Iran shouldn't be attacked unless they do something really stupid. The ball is honestly in their court.

Like trying to build a nuke in the last 20 years in secret?

2006-11-20 18:38:16

#11

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6436|North Carolina

Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Iran shouldn't be attacked unless they do something really stupid. The ball is honestly in their court.
From Israel's perspective they already had when they proclaimed that Israel should be wiped off the map. Israel sees a nuclear Iran as a serious threat, and, unlike the UN, they will act on it as they have in the past.

Talking about something is very different from doing it. By the same rationale, we could attack most of the Middle East. Ahmadinejad is just a more anti-Semitic leader than the norm.

2006-11-20 18:39:41

#12

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6436|North Carolina

Harmor wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Iran shouldn't be attacked unless they do something really stupid. The ball is honestly in their court.
Like trying to build a nuke in the last 20 years in secret?

*shrugs* I see building a nuke in secret is better than doing it out in the open, when the most powerful country in the world has forces on either side of you. Basically, Iran is already scared of us, so that's why Ahmadinejad has to fake his arrogance.

2006-11-20 18:40:43

#13

kilgoretrout: Member; +53|6501|Little Rock, AR

I think we should send in Motley Crue... Did you see their behind the music? You can't kill those motherfuckers...

2006-11-20 18:42:37

#14

cospengle: Member; +140|6518|Armidale, NSW, Australia

Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Iran shouldn't be attacked unless they do something really stupid. The ball is honestly in their court.
From Israel's perspective they already had when they proclaimed that Israel should be wiped off the map. Israel sees a nuclear Iran as a serious threat, and, unlike the UN, they will act on it as they have in the past.

Yeah, and unlike other nations or the UN they don't need a whole lot of propagnda to get their people behind the idea of attacking Iran. I think if Iran said they'd wipe Canberra off the map there wouldn't be too many Aussie against lending a hand either. Same would go for most countries I think.

2006-11-20 18:51:24

#15

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6579|San Diego, CA, USA

Turquoise wrote:
Harmor wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Iran shouldn't be attacked unless they do something really stupid. The ball is honestly in their court.
Like trying to build a nuke in the last 20 years in secret?
*shrugs* I see building a nuke in secret is better than doing it out in the open, when the most powerful country in the world has forces on either side of you. Basically, Iran is already scared of us, so that's why Ahmadinejad has to fake his arrogance.

He's faking his arrogance?

2006-11-20 18:52:56

#16

stryyker: bad touch; +1,682|6751|California

Iran will send 100,000's of unarmed Suicide Soldiers against heavy artillery and armor. Its happened before.

2006-11-20 18:58:49

#17

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6436|North Carolina

Harmor wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Harmor wrote:

Like trying to build a nuke in the last 20 years in secret?
*shrugs* I see building a nuke in secret is better than doing it out in the open, when the most powerful country in the world has forces on either side of you. Basically, Iran is already scared of us, so that's why Ahmadinejad has to fake his arrogance.
He's faking his arrogance?

Yes... I think most of what Ahmadinejad does is acting. He pretends like he's a big shot, but he knows we could kick his ass. He also knows that the only reason why we haven't done this is because Iraq is keeping us busy.

In truth, I think he's scared shitless, but he wants to catch us in a foreign policy faux pas. He knows we can only take the nuke issue so far. We can't afford to invade Iran.

My suggestion is that we pay less attention to his nukes and more attention to his terror connections. If we can put him in a position where it is in his best interests not to support terror, then the nukes become less of an issue.

2006-11-20 19:13:40

#18

TeamZephyr: Maintaining My Rage Since 1975; +124|6560|Hillside, Melbourne, Australia

You don't have to attack Iran you know.

2006-11-20 20:58:28

#19

deeznutz1245: Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.; +483|6524|Connecticut

Step one: Send in the Marines

Malloy must go

2006-11-20 21:00:31

#20

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6560|Global Command

Fancy_Pollux wrote:
The most realistic scenario would be an Israeli attack with US logistical support.

Yup, Israel will not sit quietly while Iran loads a warhead on a rocket.
Woe to man.

2006-11-20 21:05:47

#21

التعريفات: Squiggles; +102|6399|Cali

No point in attacking, Iran has the strongest military force in the Middle East. That would be pretty extraordinary if they were handled the same way as Iraq was...

2006-11-20 23:12:22

#22

BVC: Member; +325|6726

Assuming that war with Iran takes place, I believe it will depend largely on a number of factors:

A)Who strikes first
B)Whether its justified

If Iran/etc strike first and it is justified, US/etc will have minimal backing
If Iran/etc strike first and it is unjustified, US/etc will have good backing
If US/etc strike first and it is justified, Iran/etc will have minimal backing
If US/etc strike first and it is unjustitifed, Iran/etc will have good backing

C)The level of justification for the strike (assuming that it is justified)
If justification is weak, backing will be weak. Similarly, if justification is strong, backing will be strong.

D)Any extra location-specific influence/leverage which can be used.
LOTS of wildcards here, and remember any extra backing gained may be given under duress.

Last edited by Pubic (2006-11-20 23:14:04)

2006-11-20 23:36:21

#23

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6592

Harmor wrote:
With total international backing (aka Iraq 1991 war)?

You wouldn't be able to get the MEU in on it.

Harmor wrote:
With partial international backing (aka Iraq 2003 war)?

That wasn't really partial so much as a minority international backing. Partial would be a significant number of countries, but more than the 4 or 5 you had for Iraq.

Harmor wrote:
With no backing (US goes it alone)?

Ha! You should do stand up!

BF2S Forums What are the scenarios for attacking Iran?

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Board footer