Renewed Calls To Attack Iran (Are These Guys Nuts)

[Rakhmetov]

How crazy can the ruling class be??? The neo-cons are absolutely nuts!!!



http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2010/08/04/a-cakewalk-against-iran/

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

hmm... to be honest, when you think about it... they aren't that crazy. Instead, what they are wanting is to destroy anyone with the remote chance of being able to oppose them. So with that said, they are going to push for the destruction of anything and anyone who has or may seem to have the ability to destroy them... With that said though, they will achieve nothing but destruction and hell for those involved... so only time will tell what will happen and if we fall to the fears of the Right.

[DragonQuestWes]

Fucking damn. How many more wars are the US and Israel gonna start?

The US has failed bad enough in Iraq and Afghanistan, and if they start another one in Iran, then they're pretty much fucked.

[thesadmafioso]

hmm... to be honest, when you think about it... they aren't that crazy. Instead, what they are wanting is to destroy anyone with the remote chance of being able to oppose them. So with that said, they are going to push for the destruction of anything and anyone who has or may seem to have the ability to destroy them... With that said though, they will achieve nothing but destruction and hell for those involved... so only time will tell what will happen and if we fall to the fears of the Right.

I think that you may be exaggerating the military might of Iran, it is hardly a threat to the United States. Politically speaking, it holds little clout on the world stage as well. And Any military action taken against it by the US or its allies would serve to be purely symbolic. It would be with the goal of establishing further American influence and to serve as an example of what occurs when the balance of American power is challenged. And thus it would not be necessary for the US to engage in such a conflict, as it has both Iraq and Afghanistan to fulfill this purpose already.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Israel will more than likely fight the war against Iran, while being funded &/or supported by the United States. The US aren't going to fight them directly. It'll either be through Israel or terrorist actions that's being funded by the US.

[thesadmafioso]

Israel will more than likely fight the war against Iran, while being funded &/or supported by the United States. The US aren't going to fight them directly. It'll either be through Israel or terrorist actions that's being funded by the US.

The geography of the Middle East makes direct war between Israel and Iran unlikely, unless by war you do not mean something as grand as a full out invasion but rather something along the lines of an air campaign against Iran, in which case geography is made a less relevant point.

But I do find your proposition that more covert and less blunt options like a terrorist campaign funded by the US/Israel may be used in the future to be one worth considering.

[DecDoom]

According to Iran's Revolutionary Guard, they're digging mass graves for US troops. Take a look:

http://rt.com/Best_Videos/2010-08-11/iran-dug-us-graves.html

[RadioRaheem84]

http://article.nationalreview.com/267340/baghdad-delenda-est-part-two/jonah-goldberg


Well, I've long been an admirer of, if not a full-fledged subscriber to, what I call the "Ledeen Doctrine." I'm not sure my friend Michael Ledeen will thank me for ascribing authorship to him and he may have only been semi-serious when he crafted it, but here is the bedrock tenet of the Ledeen Doctrine in more or less his own words: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business." That's at least how I remember Michael phrasing it at a speech at the American Enterprise Institute about a decade ago (Ledeen is one of the most entertaining public speakers I've ever heard, by the way).

[Rusty Shackleford]

According to Iran's Revolutionary Guard, they're digging mass graves for US troops. Take a look:

http://rt.com/Best_Videos/2010-08-11/iran-dug-us-graves.html


This is just an awesome psychological move. "Hey fuckers, look we already have mass graves for ya"

But then reality sets in and i realize that those graves will be filled with working class people. and the perpetrators of this war will go unscathed.

[RadioRaheem84]

This is just an awesome psychological move. "Hey fuckers, look we already have mass graves for ya"

But then reality sets in and i realize that those graves will be filled with working class people. and the perpetrators of this war will go unscathed.

While this is true, I am certain Iranians, whether anti-regime or not, will not favor a war against their state. They would fight back against the attackers.

[The Vegan Marxist]

As much as we must defend Iran against US & Israeli imperialism, in the end, it's the Iranian communist party (maoist) that should be defended against the Iranian state. Since they're the most organized.

[RadioRaheem84]

As much as we must defend Iran against US & Israeli imperialism, in the end, it's the Iranian communist party (maoist) that should be defended against the Iranian state. Since they're the most organized.

what about the other communist or socialist parties in iran?

[The Vegan Marxist]

If they all can organize together, that would be a great move in their part. As of right now though, the rest aren't as organized nor as connected to the working class as the Maoists seem to be. I really hope they all come together though, that'd be excellent!

[mossy noonmann]

leaving aside the maoist fantasists

an attack on Iran,even fairly limited, by the US or Israel would lead to a massive retaliation.
One of the reasons for this is that Iran has seen what happened to Iraq when weakened by sanctions and small scale bombing the army collapsed as soon as the invasion took place.

The US usually can bomb a country without the danger of direct retaliation, this is not the case for Iran. There are hundreds of thousands of US troops on the ground in the middle east, Afghanistan and Pakistan. These bases are under direct threat of attack from Iranian ballistic missiles. The level of casualties the US would risk is very large.

There are also many US warships in the Persian Gulf. Well within range of Iranian missiles. The Iranian military could also organise suicide bombings of US and/or commercial shipping. Remember 40% of the worlds crude oil passes through the Straits of Hormuz.

It would probably kick off between Israel and Hezbollah. Hamas could get involved.
i've also read that Iran has gathered a lot of information on US intelligence gathering in the region, these sites would also be hit.

Despite attempts by the US to divide Shia from Sunni most people in The region still don't regard Iran as a threat comparable to the threat from the US.

this is not to say Iran won't be bombed but the stakes are a lot higher for the US than normal

[~Spectre]

Indeed, Iranian planners ran an absolute circle around the Bush administration to the point where they don't have a totally weak hand to play.

If the U.S. wants to, it can still totally destroy Iran, but the nakedness of it and the effect on oil prices would produce quite the political backlash domestically and for allies.

[Devrim]

As much as we must defend Iran against US & Israeli imperialism, in the end, it's the Iranian communist party (maoist) that should be defended against the Iranian state. Since they're the most organized.

I sort of follow the Iranian political scene, though I wouldn't claim to be an expert on it, and I am not even sure who this party is, unless you mean the Communist Party of Iran(Marxist-Leninst-Maoist (http://www.sarbedaran.org/). I don't think they are a particularly big group though.

Devrim

(http://www.sarbedaran.org/)

[Devrim]

leaving aside the maoist fantasists

an attack on Iran,even fairly limited, by the US or Israel would lead to a massive retaliation.
One of the reasons for this is that Iran has seen what happened to Iraq when weakened by sanctions and small scale bombing the army collapsed as soon as the invasion took place.

The US usually can bomb a country without the danger of direct retaliation, this is not the case for Iran. There are hundreds of thousands of US troops on the ground in the middle east, Afghanistan and Pakistan. These bases are under direct threat of attack from Iranian ballistic missiles. The level of casualties the US would risk is very large.

There are also many US warships in the Persian Gulf. Well within range of Iranian missiles. The Iranian military could also organise suicide bombings of US and/or commercial shipping. Remember 40% of the worlds crude oil passes through the Straits of Hormuz.

It would probably kick off between Israel and Hezbollah. Hamas could get involved.
i've also read that Iran has gathered a lot of information on US intelligence gathering in the region, these sites would also be hit.

Despite attempts by the US to divide Shia from Sunni most people in The region still don't regard Iran as a threat comparable to the threat from the US.

this is not to say Iran won't be bombed but the stakes are a lot higher for the US than normal

I think that this is basically a pretty clear outline of the situation.

I'd like to add that if the US attacked Iran, not only would they use their supporters in Lebanon and Palestine, but also bring into play those in Iraq, and Afghanistan, both of which are pretty quiet at the moment.

The US certainly has a lot to lose in its attempts to control the region by an attack on Iran, including an intensification of the wars in the two countries where it is already involved.

I doubt that the US will do it whatever the neo-cons say. Israel of course could, but of course we are talking about an air-strike, not an invasion

Devrim

[Devrim]

If the U.S. wants to, it can still totally destroy Iran, but the nakedness of it and the effect on oil prices would produce quite the political backlash domestically and for allies.

I don't think so. The US is pretty stretched as it is, and an occupation of Iran, which has a much bigger population than Iraq and Afghanistan put together would be a step too far.

Devrim

[mossy noonmann]

i seem to get the feeling that an attack by israel would be regarded as an American attack by proxy

Israel would need US logistical support.

[~Spectre]

I don't think so. The US is pretty stretched as it is, and an occupation of Iran, which has a much bigger population than Iraq and Afghanistan put together would be a step too far.

Devrim


I disagree comrade.


The Navy reports sending a submarine tender to the island to service nuclear-powered guided-missile submarines with Tomahawk missiles, which can carry nuclear warheads. Each submarine is reported to have the striking power of a typical carrier battle group. According to a US Navy cargo manifest obtained by the Sunday Herald (Glasgow), the substantial military equipment Obama has dispatched includes 387 “bunker busters” used for blasting hardened underground structures. Planning for these “massive ordnance penetrators,” the most powerful bombs in the arsenal short of nuclear weapons, was initiated in the Bush administration, but languished. On taking office, Obama immediately accelerated the plans, and they are to be deployed several years ahead of schedule, aiming specifically at Iran.
“They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran,” according to Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London. “US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours,” he said. “The firepower of US forces has quadrupled since 2003,” accelerating under Obama.
http://www.zcommunications.org/the-iranian-threat-by-noam-chomsky

Troop levels are being drawn down from Iraq under the status of forces agreement, and the U.S. still has troops left, in addition to having Iran quite literally surrounded.

Undoubtedly, they'd prefer bombing to occupation, which is why Iran would tend to restrain itself before pulling all the triggers it has. If Iran were however to retaliate at full power, U.S. planners would be "forced", to destroy the Iranian state. Since we've established that occupying is Iran is undesirable, they'd up the scale of brutality by several orders of magnitude. Iran can be beat into submission if the U.S. chooses to cut pretenses and engage with even greater means of violence than was employed in Iraq.

[~Spectre]

i seem to get the feeling that an attack by israel would be regarded as an American attack by proxy

Israel would need US logistical support.


Neocons try to use this as the main selling point, the idea that Iran will (correctly) view it as a U.S. proxy attack, so they will retaliate against us too, so why not cut the bullshit and just take them out in one big blitz?


The more traditional state department positions tend to be that Iran would restrain itself from full retaliation because directly engaging the United States is absolute suicide. Ergo, they are still deterred from retaliation if you haven't fully engaged them yet, but if you start out by fully engaging them, they don't have much to lose anymore.

[mossy noonmann]

i did read somewhere three or four months ago that US officials visited tel aviv to tell israel that it was on its own if it attacked iran.

the problem for the US is that it has no real way of knowing what the Iranian reaction would be. but in the days and weeks following an attack all US shipping and forces on the ground become very very real targets. you have to ask yourself if the US public or army would stand for loses that could make the bombing of the marine base in lebanon ,where 241 soldiers were killed, look small.
After the loss of the 241 Marines the Americans 'redeployed' to ships.
You have to think about how easy a target both to terrorist and conventional attack these troops are.

[mossy noonmann]

also with regards the chomsky piece. dan plesch has been predicting an attack since at least 2005. this is not to say he's wrong. even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

cant post the links but google iran dan plesch

[~Spectre]

also with regards the chomsky piece. dan plesch has been predicting an attack since at least 2005. this is not to say he's wrong. even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

cant post the links but google iran dan plesch

I'm not arguing whether the U.S. will or won't. The point of the quote was about whether they could. His prediction may have been wrong, but are his factual assertions wrong?

[mossy noonmann]

no, they are right. But it is for what reason the US are doing it. the sunday herald who broke the story ran this as their last paragraph in their follow up article

"One report, from the World Tribune in the US, said the shipment had been originally destined for US bases in Israel. Quoting Congressional sources, it suggested the bunker busters had been diverted to Diego Garcia as part of an unacknowledged embargo on military equipment for Israel."

[bricolage]

So according to this forum the US, despite being bogged down in Iraq (whatever they might say about 'withdrawal') and Afghanistan, is about to launch attacks on North Korea, Cuba *and* Iran?
I think you lot play too much Risk.

[mossy noonmann]

For whats its worth , I don't think the US will attack iran, for the reasons i have given above.

The point about chomsky using the quote from plesch is that plesch has history

“They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran,” said Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London, co-author of a recent study on US preparations for an attack on Iran. “US bombers are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours,” he added.
14 Mar 2010


American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day. They extend far beyond targeting suspect WMD facilities and will enable President Bush to destroy Iran's military, political and economic infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons.
Published 19 February 2007




Do not be in the least surprised if the United States attacks Iran. Timing is an open question, but it is hard to find convincing arguments that war will be avoided, or at least ones that are convincing in Washington.
21 march 2005


Also the point that the 'bunker busters' being moved to diego garcia could have gone to Israel but didn't. does that make an attack more or less likely? i don't know. but if the headline had been 'US gives bunker busters to mossys cat' an argument could be made as to how this was in preperation for an attack.


Is Uncle Sam mad enough to attack Iran? i hope not. but they have painted themselves into a corner with the rhetoric about iran's nukes.


where i think Plesch is correct is in saying that if the US does attack the attack would be massive to try to destroy any Iranian retaliation before it could happen.

[The Vegan Marxist]

To me, the US are taking several diverse steps into weakening Iran. Whether it be through the possible funding & training of known terrorist cores, or the attempts to try & get the IAEA to go against Iran. They've already tried getting a mass amount of people to try & "overthrow" the leadership of Ahmadinejad through the "green revolution". I point all of this out here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/secret-war-come-t138922/index.html?t=138922

Where this'll lead, not particularly sure. But I'm positive we're going to witness some kind of violent conflict between Iran & some imperialist power, whether it be directly or indirectly.

[mossy noonmann]

right.
i tried to read that 'essay' and it explained nothing it was a mish mash of quotes and history which im sorry to say didn't really say anything.

i'm presuming english isn't your language of choice , so ,try telling us what you know about the green revolution etc without the flowery language. it will be quicker for both of us

[The Vegan Marxist]

right.
i tried to read that 'essay' and it explained nothing it was a mish mash of quotes and history which im sorry to say didn't really say anything.

i'm presuming english isn't your language of choice , so ,try telling us what you know about the green revolution etc without the flowery language. it will be quicker for both of us

:confused:

Alright then. The "green revolution" was nothing more than a US-backed counterrevolutionary movement in order to try & overthrow the democratically elected government of President Ahmadinejad. This is, essentially, the same as we saw during the Shah's "white revolution", in which the US & British helped overthrow the Iranian presidency of Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953.

And where do you come off by stating that english isn't my language of choice? I can already point out error's in your post (which is irrelevant to the conversation at hand, but whatever).

[japagow1]

Seems to me all this ballyhoo is rubbish. There won't be a war. Everybody just calm down. Humbug and fooey.

The US is broke and they're still spending 20 billion dollars a year maintaining 50,000 troops in Afghanistan until 2013 -despite the headline 'withdrawal' we're all supposed to be pleased about- and I bet it's this news that has got the right wingers in the US jumping up and down about Iran.

If Washington want my opinion they'll call but in the mean time if they're reading this I say invest your military budget into green energy and windmills and go fishing.

Amen

[mossy noonmann]

ok

The "green revolution" was nothing more than a US-backed counterrevolutionary movement in order to try & overthrow the democratically elected government of President Ahmadinejad.i do not think this is true, did the US fly weapons and operatives and money into tehran airport like 1953? and did it get rid of the govt?

do you not think that those who were protesting might have a point?

in fact , to put it a bit more strongly if you lived in iran would you support the govt?

sorry about the language of choice thing:) but really what you wrote didn't need that much space

[The Vegan Marxist]

ok
i do not think this is true, did the US fly weapons and operatives and money into tehran airport like 1953? and did it get rid of the govt?

do you not think that those who were protesting might have a point?

in fact , to put it a bit more strongly if you lived in iran would you support the govt?

sorry about the language of choice thing:) but really what you wrote didn't need that much space

It wasn't as well supported by the US like in 1953, but it was promoted through the US, & created a "green revolution" support through the US. Just a day before the 2009 election, neocon, Kenneth Timmerman, stated that “there’s talk of a ‘green revolution’ in Tehran ... the National Endowment for Democracy has spent millions of dollars promoting ‘color’ revolutions … Some of that money appears to have made it into the hands of pro-Mousavi groups, who have ties to non-governmental organizations outside Iran that the National Endowment for Democracy funds.”

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12639&news_iv_ctrl=1261

[mossy noonmann]

in fact , to put it a bit more strongly if you lived in iran would you support the govt?i know i wouldn't. would you ?

[The Vegan Marxist]

i know i wouldn't. would you ?

I support it against imperialism. I don't support it of its entirety.

[RadioRaheem84]

Seems to me all this ballyhoo is rubbish. There won't be a war. Everybody just calm down. Humbug and fooey.

The US is broke and they're still spending 20 billion dollars a year maintaining 50,000 troops in Afghanistan until 2013 -despite the headline 'withdrawal' we're all supposed to be pleased about- and I bet it's this news that has got the right wingers in the US jumping up and down about Iran.

If Washington want my opinion they'll call but in the mean time if they're reading this I say invest your military budget into green energy and windmills and go fishing.

Amen

One would think that being broke would any imperial nation a mantle in which to engage in war?

[Devrim]

I disagree comrade.


The Navy reports sending a submarine tender to the island to service nuclear-powered guided-missile submarines with Tomahawk missiles, which can carry nuclear warheads. Each submarine is reported to have the striking power of a typical carrier battle group. According to a US Navy cargo manifest obtained by the Sunday Herald (Glasgow), the substantial military equipment Obama has dispatched includes 387 “bunker busters” used for blasting hardened underground structures. Planning for these “massive ordnance penetrators,” the most powerful bombs in the arsenal short of nuclear weapons, was initiated in the Bush administration, but languished. On taking office, Obama immediately accelerated the plans, and they are to be deployed several years ahead of schedule, aiming specifically at Iran.
“They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran,” according to Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London. “US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours,” he said. “The firepower of US forces has quadrupled since 2003,” accelerating under Obama.

http://www.zcommunications.org/the-iranian-threat-by-noam-chomsky

As is pointed out later in the thread, Dan Plesch "has been predicting an attack since at least 2005." So far he has been wrong.


Troop levels are being drawn down from Iraq under the status of forces agreement, and the U.S. still has troops left, in addition to having Iran quite literally surrounded.

As I understand it the US 'withdrawal' from Iraq means that they will only maintain 50,000 troops there. How practical it will be, and weather the US troops will stay at those numbers we will have to see. If the Arabic media is anything to go by it is a recipe for disaster.

Even if it were successful though, the idea that they could attack Iran, and still maintain such low troop levels in Iraq, with Iran launching its Shia allies against them, doesn't really work. To attack Iran, the US wii have to increase troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan, just to maintain the insecurity it has now.


Undoubtedly, they'd prefer bombing to occupation, which is why Iran would tend to restrain itself before pulling all the triggers it has. If Iran were however to retaliate at full power, U.S. planners would be "forced", to destroy the Iranian state. Since we've established that occupying is Iran is undesirable, they'd up the scale of brutality by several orders of magnitude. Iran can be beat into submission if the U.S. chooses to cut pretenses and engage with even greater means of violence than was employed in Iraq.

The deterrent works both ways though. The US knows that if it launches massive attacks on Iran, Iran will have no alternative, but to 'pull all the triggers it has'.

At the moment there is no reason to do so. Looking from this part of the world, and not through the lens of the US media, Iran seems like it is winning. What I mean by that is that the major beneficiary of the US invasion of Iraq has been Iran. Iran has no reason to pull all of the triggers at the moment. They are on top of the game.

Devrim

[Devrim]

To me, the US are taking several diverse steps into weakening Iran. Whether it be through the possible funding & training of known terrorist cores,

The US has been doing this for decades now, including incidentally one of the favourite groups of some on here, the PKK.


Alright then. The "green revolution" was nothing more than a US-backed counterrevolutionary movement in order to try & overthrow the democratically elected government of President Ahmadinejad. This is, essentially, the same as we saw during the Shah's "white revolution", in which the US & British helped overthrow the Iranian presidency of Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953.

I don't think that it was the same at all. It roots were in a faction fight within the Iranian ruling class, which brought about some cross class protest movements. Of course the US tried to intervene, but I don't think that its role was pivotal.



in fact , to put it a bit more strongly if you lived in iran would you support the govt? I support it against imperialism. I don't support it of its entirety.

What would that mean if you lived in Iran. Would you sign up for the Basij-e Mostaz'afin to support the government against protestors on the streets, or would you be coming out with stuff like this from one well known leftist group:


we have no choice but to support the Khomeini regime ...it would be wrong to strike...
socialists should not call for the disruption of military supplies to the front… should not support actions which could lead to the collapse of the military effortDevrim

[~Spectre]

As is pointed out later in the thread, Dan Plesch "has been predicting an attack since at least 2005." So far he has been wrong.


Strawman argument. His testimony hasn't been used to determine whether they will, but whether they have the capacity, which so far has gone uncontested. And I'd stop using his previous assertions against him to be honest, if Iran hadn't been able to use its proxy influence in Iraq, Iran probably would've been attacked, in other words, it wasn't that unreasonable of an inference, not that it matters anyway for the subject matter.










Even if it were successful though, the idea that they could attack Iran, and still maintain such low troop levels in Iraq, with Iran launching its Shia allies against them, doesn't really work. To attack Iran, the US wii have to increase troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan, just to maintain the insecurity it has now.


Simulations of the scenario don't have Iran doing this, because it has nothing to gain from pushing the United States into having to destroy the Iranian state out of necessity.



The deterrent works both ways though. The US knows that if it launches massive attacks on Iran, Iran will have no alternative, but to 'pull all the triggers it has'.

Right, and I've basically said as much. Which is why strikes against Iran (which I'm not necessarily predicting) wouldn't be a direct existential challenge to the Iranian state. I.e. the ruling class of Iran still has incentive to not escalate against the United States. Undoubtedly, it may do something, such as missile attacks against the nuclear facility of Israel, but things such as attacking American bases and oil infrastructure will be out of the question.

The United States has a well known policy that it will destroy any threat to its oil supply, which Iran would trigger by strikes.

The scale of magnitude of attacks on Iran should Iran cross a United States red line, would result in the destruction of the Iranian state, and in order to deal with the aftermath, the destruction of a good deal of the civilian population.

Iran's deterrence is that it prevents the U.S. from going to the final level of destruction, but not necessarily initial strikes.






At the moment there is no reason to do so. Looking from this part of the world, and not through the lens of the US media, Iran seems like it is winning. What I mean by that is that the major beneficiary of the US invasion of Iraq has been Iran. Iran has no reason to pull all of the triggers at the moment. They are on top of the game.


Iran is in a good spot, which is why attack's haven't happened, however if they did, the point is, Iran would be committing national suicide by escalating. Iranian leaders know this.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The US has been doing this for decades now, including incidentally one of the favourite groups of some on here, the PKK.

Yes, I'm very aware of their cross dealings with the PKK. Which they asked for them to allow the Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) to get to Iran's northwestern border. There's also rumors of the MKO being provided shelter & training by a US military encampment in Baghdad.


I don't think that it was the same at all. It roots were in a faction fight within the Iranian ruling class, which brought about some cross class protest movements. Of course the US tried to intervene, but I don't think that its role was pivotal.

Wasn't saying it was as well handled as the 1953 coup, but it was essentially supported greatly within the States. The "Green Revolution" support base in the US was getting big. Even mainstream media promoted it through their reporting's.


What would that mean if you lived in Iran. Would you sign up for the Basij-e Mostaz'afin to support the government against protestors on the streets, or would you be coming out with stuff like this from one well known leftist group.

I would say that's irrelevant since I don't live there. Idk what I'd do if I was a citizen of Iran. One's thoughts & actions are developed through one's environmental conditionings. So it would be different than here in the States when compared to Iran.

[Devrim]

Yes, I'm very aware of their cross dealings with the PKK. Which they asked for them to allow the Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) to get to Iran's northwestern border. There's also rumors of the MKO being provided shelter & training by a US military encampment in Baghdad.

The US has directly armed PJAK, the Iranian section of the PKK although Obama seems to have shifted policy on that.


Wasn't saying it was as well handled as the 1953 coup, but it was essentially supported greatly within the States. The "Green Revolution" support base in the US was getting big. Even mainstream media promoted it through their reporting's.

The fact that the US media supported it, doesn't mean that the US created the movement. Whilst it is possible that they did, I think that it is extremely unlikely. The CIA in the 1953 coup did not mobilise millions of people behind it.


I would say that's irrelevant since I don't live there. Idk what I'd do if I was a citizen of Iran. One's thoughts & actions are developed through one's environmental conditionings. So it would be different than here in the States when compared to Iran.

I don't think it is actually a question about what you would personally do, more what approach do you think that communists in Iran should be taking.

Devrim

[gorillafuck]

The United States will not attack Iran. Though I think that some people are still downplaying the risk that the United States really does pose to Iran, because while I am also skeptical of the idea that Israel could start a war with Iran I wouldn't be surprised if they staged attacks in Iran as well as CIA and Mossad attacks in Iran.

[Devrim]

Strawman argument. His testimony hasn't been used to determine whether they will, but whether they have the capacity, which so far has gone uncontested. And I'd stop using his previous assertions against him to be honest, if Iran hadn't been able to use its proxy influence in Iraq, Iran probably would've been attacked, in other words, it wasn't that unreasonable of an inference, not that it matters anyway for the subject matter.

The US has the capacity to bomb Iran to Kingdom come. I don't think that there is any doubt about that. The question is do they have the land troops to follow it up, or even deal with the chaos it would cause through out the region.


Simulations of the scenario don't have Iran doing this, because it has nothing to gain from pushing the United States into having to destroy the Iranian state out of necessity.

I don't see them doing it unless they are attacked. The point is though at the moment they don't need to as they are in quite a good position.


Right, and I've basically said as much. Which is why strikes against Iran (which I'm not necessarily predicting) wouldn't be a direct existential challenge to the Iranian state. I.e. the ruling class of Iran still has incentive to not escalate against the United States. Undoubtedly, it may do something, such as missile attacks against the nuclear facility of Israel, but things such as attacking American bases and oil infrastructure will be out of the question.

Even without doing that, it could unleash its proxies in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan. That still wouldn't be an escalation to the extent that a direct Iranian attack on US troops or facilities would.


Iran's deterrence is that it prevents the U.S. from going to the final level of destruction, but not necessarily initial strikes.
...
Iran is in a good spot, which is why attack's haven't happened, however if they did, the point is, Iran would be committing national suicide by escalating. Iranian leaders know this.

I am sure if you sat down with the Iranian leaders and talked to them, they wouldn't want a war with the US. The problem is that neither side knows how the other will react to it raising the stakes. The US might think that it can get away with a strike on an Iranian nuclear complex. Iran might think that it can then get away with order Shia militias in Iraq to attack US troops (hell they might do it anyway). Ultimately it is like a game of chicken with both sides thinking the other is going to blink first.

Devrim

[The Vegan Marxist]

I don't think it is actually a question about what you would personally do, more what approach do you think that communists in Iran should be taking.

Devrim

Well, as Communists, we should support Iran against imperialism. This is not directly saying supporting those leading Iran, but rather make sure that the people we have to face in Iran is those leading it right now, not someone like the US or Israel.

Having said that, as Communists, we should also show resistance to the exploitation through the working class in Iran by bringing up numbers internally within Iran.

[RadioRaheem84]

Does anyone have any doubt in their mind that the US and Israel would support "liberal revolutionary" movements in Iran and finance Monarchist exile movements in order in the wake of any radical social change?

This is why the Iranian State needs to be defended against imperialism but not supported. Allowing the Iranian State to fall would also allow for leftist movements to fall within the country to fall too.

[Devrim]

Well, as Communists, we should support Iran against imperialism.
...
Having said that, as Communists, we should also show resistance to the exploitation through the working class in Iran by bringing up numbers internally within Iran.

What does this mean though? Supporting the state means calls for national unity and denouncing of class struggle.


This is why the Iranian State needs to be defended against imperialism but not supported.

What does this mean in practice?


Allowing the Iranian State to fall would also allow for leftist movements to fall within the country to fall too.

I don't really think the left is in any position to allow the Iranian state to fall or not anyway.

Devrim

[The Vegan Marxist]

I don't really think the left is in any position to allow the Iranian state to fall or not anyway.

Devrim

What do you propose then?

[KC]

I think this guest article on Informed Comment by Mahan Abedin explains why a war with Iran is unfeasible:


Abedin: The Illusion of a ‘limited war’ against Iran

Posted on August 9, 2010 (http://www.juancole.com/2010/08/abedin-the-illusion-of-a-%e2%80%98limited-war%e2%80%99-against-iran.html) by Juan (http://www.juancole.com/author/admin/)

Mahan Abedin writes in a guest editorial for Informed Comment:

The frank admission by Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and America’s highest ranking officer, that the U.S. has plans to attack Iran to prevent that country from acquiring nuclear weapons, is being treated with the utmost seriousness in political, intelligence and military circles in Tehran.

This is the first time that a high-ranking U.S. official has spoken about the existence of military plans to prevent the Islamic Republic from crossing the nuclear threshold. There is considerable evidence that Mullen’s frank statement, coupled with the Obama Administration’s increasingly hostile and dismissive attitude towards Iran, and reinforced by the fourth round of United Nations sanctions imposed in June (followed by even harsher unilateral sanctions imposed by both the European Union and the United States), has radically altered the Tehran regime’s strategic calculations on the possibility of a military confrontation with the United States.

Hitherto the conventional wisdom amongst strategic policy makers in the Islamic Republic was that the U.S. would adhere to the ‘no war no peace’ policy, irrespective of the bellicose rhetoric of American leaders and officials. The policy of ‘no war no peace’ has characterized Iranian-American relations since the victory of the Islamic Revolution in February 1979.

The basic premise of this policy is that at different stages Iran and America edge towards war or peace – depending on the prevailing strategic scenario in the region – but never quite actually achieve either. The result is that most of the time the two states are somewhere in the middle conducting a Cold War, in which leaders and officials from both sides trade insults and engage in ideological and political grandstanding, but stop well short of the point where further escalation of tensions might trigger a hot war.

For the past thirty-one years this policy has benefited most of the key stakeholders, including hardline political factions in both countries, the regional Arab states, Turkey, Pakistan and Israel. All have benefited from this Iranian-American Cold War, insofar as the paucity of diplomatic and political relations between Iran and America has continuously opened up a wide range of strategic, political and economic benefits. By the same token, these stake holders would have much to lose if Iran and America actually engaged in real fighting. While this argument has manifold shortcomings, nonetheless it does capture a large part of the reality of Iranian-American relations since 1979. In any case it is what key Iranian strategic policy makers have believed all along. Until now that is.

Despite the fact that a few days before Mullen’s statement, the supreme commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC—Sepah-e-Pasdaran in Persian), Brigadier General Mohammad Ali Jafari, dismissed U.S. threats, claiming that America “would not dare to attack Iran”, other IRGC leaders have in recent months continuously warned of the immediate and long-term fallout of any military confrontation. The head of the IRGC’s political-ideological unit recently warned of “dire” threats to regional security in the event of an American military attack. Meanwhile Ahmad Vahidi, Iran’s defence minister and a former commander of the IRGC’s elite Qods Force (responsible for special foreign operations), has pledged a “robust” response to any American military aggression against Iran.

It has been clear for months that the mood of IRGC commanders has been changing and Mullen’s statement appears to lend credence to the strategic calculations of the Revolutionary Guard commanders. This development is of the utmost significance, since in the event of an Iranian-American military confrontation, the IRGC is expected to be at the forefront of containing the American assault and retaliating with military measures of its own.

In fact, in the event of a military confrontation Iranian leaders are likely to relieve the regular Iranian military from fighting, so as to keep them out of harm’s way and maintain the integrity and fighting strength of the regular armed forces. There is another reason for this decision and that has to do with the depleted capabilities of the national military; in the past thirty years the national armed forces have insidiously lost power and prestige to the IRGC. It is worth noting that Iran is the only country in the world that operates two completely independent military commands; one centred on the regular armed forces, and the other on the IRGC, which operates its own ground forces, navy and air force, as well as a myriad of intelligence and security services. Moreover, the IRGC controls all of Iran’s strategic military assets, including mid-range ballistic missile capability.

It has become fashionable to paint the IRGC as an economic conglomerate more interested in making money than fighting for the values of the Islamic Revolution. Much of the reporting on IRGC economic activity is inaccurate and disingenuous and is indicative of the faux-naif style of analysis often employed by Western journalists and analysts.

The truth is that whilst the IRGC has a sizeable economic wing centred on the Khatam ol-Anbia complex (Qarargah-e Khatam ol-Anbia), its economic and financial activities are kept strictly separate from its fighting units. In any case, the IRGC is foremost an ideological army that is totally and unequivocally committed to the survival of the Islamic Revolution, and the political-religious system that emerged from that revolution. Even former reformist president (and now opposition leader) Mohammad Khatami referred to the IRGC as the “most ideological armed force in the world.”

American political and military leaders would be mistaken if they believed they could get away with a “limited” military strike on Iran, designed to destroy that country’s nuclear infrastructure. Any military strike on Iran by the United States will be interpreted by Iran’s rulers, and their IRGC enforcers, as a direct assault on the integrity and the very existence of the Islamic Republic. From a strategic point of view, IRGC commanders will interpret any American strike as the beginning of an existential conflict, and will respond appropriately.

A top priority for the IRGC high command is to respond so harshly and decisively so as to deter the Americans from a second set of strikes at a future point. The idea here is to avoid what happened to Iraq in the period 1991-2003, when the former Baathist regime was so weakened by sanctions and repeated small-scale military attacks that it quickly collapsed in the face of American and British invading armies.

The range of predictable responses available to the IRGC high command include dramatic hit ad run attacks against military and commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf, the use of mid-range ballistic missiles against American bases in the region and Israel and a direct assault on American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. All these options are likely to be used within 48 hours of the start of hostilities.

What is less predictable is the response of the IRGC Qods Force, which is likely to be at the forefront of the Pasdaran’s counter-attack. One possible response by the Qods force is spectacular terrorist-style attacks against American intelligence bases and assets throughout the region. The IRGC Qods Force is believed to have identified every key component of the American intelligence apparatus in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are likely to put this information to good use, especially since the Qods Force suspects that the CIA had a hand in last October’s Jundullah-organised suicide bombing targeting IRGC commanders in Iran’s volatile Sistan va Baluchistan province.

The IRGC navy will also play a key asymmetrical role in the conflict by organising maritime suicide bombings on an industrial scale. By manning its fleet of speedboats with suicide bombers and ramming them into American warships and even neutral commercial shipping, the Pasdaran will hope to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 40 percent of world crude oil supplies pass.

The combination of these asymmetrical forms of warfare with more conventional style missile and even ground force attacks on American bases in the region will likely result in thousands of American military casualties in the space of a few weeks. The IRGC has both the will and wherewithal to inflict a level of casualties on American armed forces not seen since the Second World War.

Even if the United States manages to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and much of the country’s military assets, the IRGC can still claim victory by claiming to have given the Americans a bloody nose and producing an outcome not dissimilar from the Israeli-Hezbollah military engagement in the summer of 2006.

The political effect of this will likely be even more explosive than the actual fighting. Not only will it awaken the sleeping giant of Iranian nationalism, thus aligning the broad mass of the people with the regime, it will also shore up Iran’s image in the region and prove once and for all that the Islamic Republic is prepared to fight to the death to uphold its principles. Suddenly Iran’s allies in the region – particularly non-state actors like Hezbollah and Hamas – would stand ten feet tall.

Ironically U.S. military aggression will likely accelerate the actualisation of the very scenario that American political and military leaders insist they are determined to prevent, i.e. a nuclear armed Iran. Even if we accept the contentious proposition that Iran’s nuclear programme has a military dimension, the immediate reaction of Iran’s rulers to military aggression would be to start a crash programme to produce a nuclear weapon, as a means of deterring future aggression.

Contrary to what Mike Mullen and other American military commanders appear to believe, a military attack on Iran really is the very worst option. Its consequences for Iran, the region and the United States are dangerously unpredictable, to the extent that any decision to attack would be nothing less than stunningly reckless and quite possibly the worst strategic mistake in American military history. Responsible actors in the international system should exert the maximum effort to avoid an Iranian-American War.

Mahan Abedin is a Middle East analyst.

Informed Comment (http://www.juancole.com/2010/08/abedin-the-illusion-of-a-%E2%80%98limited-war%E2%80%99-against-iran.html)

[Devrim]

What do you propose then?

I think that the first thing that communists need is a realistic understanding of the world. If mass protests alone were enough to stop war then surely the last war in Iraq would have been stopped as there were massive protests all over the globe. It wasn't.

I think that what we have to realise is that the working class can stop wars, and has historically shown its ability to do so. The First World War was not stopped by the Zimmerwald deceleration, but by massive strikes, and mutinies.

Obviously to get to that situation you need a strong working class.

I think the best thing that revolutionaries can do is to intervene in the struggles of the class always arguing for class autonomy and internationalism.

To give one example, during the last Turkish war in Northern Iraq there was a 48 day long Telecom strike. Despite strikers being denounced by all of the media as traitors to the country disrupting an important piece of the national infrastructure during a war, and despite their trade union leaders constantly whining that they weren't traitors, this condemnation did not make the strikers return to work.

I think that events like this a part of the long slow process of the working class realising that its interests are separate from those of the state. The class war is always on the home front.

With regards to Iran, what we can do is to work with revolutionaries from that country to build a revolutionary presence there.

Devrim

[mossy noonmann]

The thing is it would be mad , as the title of the thread points out, for the US to attack Iran (but madder than bombing a paracetamol factory because of sexual scandals with an intern ?).
It seems to me that the current situation of 'neither war nor peace' suits both sides very well. Any US president or anybody can start talking about Iran when he needs to show he is TOUGH .
Same thing for the Iranians and their 'Great Satan'.

i agreed with everything said in post #49
but (there is always a but) i dont think the iranian working class has the power to stop US attacks on its towns,cities and villages.

the points made over the massive demos and the failure to stop the iraq invasion are very interesting , i have my POV but i imagine it was discussed long before i got here

[japagow1]

Top post prize goes to KC for his informed comment full of facts without speculation hysteria or conjecture.

[~Spectre]

I am sure if you sat down with the Iranian leaders and talked to them, they wouldn't want a war with the US. The problem is that neither side knows how the other will react to it raising the stakes. The US might think that it can get away with a strike on an Iranian nuclear complex. Iran might think that it can then get away with order Shia militias in Iraq to attack US troops (hell they might do it anyway). Ultimately it is like a game of chicken with both sides thinking the other is going to blink first.

Devrim

Indeed comrade. If I had to guess, I'd say that the relevant players mindsets are probably best reflected in this simulation http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2010/02_iran_israel_strike_pollack/02_iran_israel_strike_pollack.pdf (or at least somewhere along those lines)


Some things from the simulation: The U.S. does not want to strike at Iran. Even with an Iranian team that was described as "unrealistically aggressive", the simulated Iranian response chose not to directly (even through proxies) engage the United States, and I think that's a key point. Israel however did get attacked directly and indirectly. Once the simulated Iranian response expanded to include Saudi Arabia, the United States finally took direct action.

The simulation also concluded that if Israel (or anyone else for that matter) were to fail in doing significant damage to Iran in the initial strikes, Iran is more likely to be more restrained. Israel itself seems to be a bit skeptical in its ability to "get the job done" on an initial set of strikes against Iran, should they choose to ignore the United States and act unilaterally.

The propaganda efforts by war hawks have stepped up to push this thing, but the calculus makes it inconvenient for the United States to really pursue it.

[Rusty Shackleford]

So, a nuclear plant is getting fuel by the 21st. (http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=224996)

Israel didnt want to bomb that syrian nuclear power plant after it had fuel so they did it before it had the fuel. why? radiation. what does this mean? im only speculating but they(israel) might do something insane within the next 5 days.

[The Vegan Marxist]

So, a nuclear plant is getting fuel by the 21st. (http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=224996)

Israel didnt want to bomb that syrian nuclear power plant after it had fuel so they did it before it had the fuel. why? radiation. what does this mean? im only speculating but they(israel) might do something insane within the next 5 days.

Hopefully nothing. Though, we've already seen the US & Israel take a hypocritical stance with the US doing nuclear energy deals with Vietnam, & the US hiding the production of nuclear weapons in Israel.

[KC]

Israel didnt want to bomb that syrian nuclear power plant after it had fuel so they did it before it had the fuel. why? radiation. what does this mean? im only speculating but they(israel) might do something insane within the next 5 days.

They won't. Israel is at one of the worst positions it has ever been in, being completely isolated from all its regional neighbors after alienating Turkey over the flotilla controversy. Moreover, Israel would not have any official support from the US in bombing the nuclear reactor because of the incredibly destabilizing effect it would have in the region and the polarizing of anti-US/Israel sentiment.

This would lead to a hot war, which as was outlined in my previous post, they will not risk. Iran will achieve nuclear power without any direct/open military intervention by the US or Israel.

[The Vegan Marxist]

They won't. Israel is at one of the worst positions it has ever been in, being completely isolated from all its regional neighbors after alienating Turkey over the flotilla controversy. Moreover, Israel would not have any official support from the US in bombing the nuclear reactor because of the incredibly destabilizing effect it would have in the region and the polarizing of anti-US/Israel sentiment.

This would lead to a hot war, which as was outlined in my previous post, they will not risk. Iran will achieve nuclear power without any direct/open military intervention by the US or Israel.

Why'd you call Vacant "Israel"?

[KC]

What?

[The Vegan Marxist]

What?


Originally Posted by Israel
Israel didnt want to bomb that syrian nuclear power plant after it had fuel so they did it before it had the fuel. why? radiation. what does this mean? im only speculating but they(israel) might do something insane within the next 5 days.

^Where it's bolded.

[KC]

Haha I don't know. Perhaps I'm just worn out from an 11 hour day...


...or perhaps I think Vacant is planning on bombing Iran...

[The Vegan Marxist]

^haha, no worries.

[~Spectre]

So, a nuclear plant is getting fuel by the 21st. (http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=224996)

Israel didnt want to bomb that syrian nuclear power plant after it had fuel so they did it before it had the fuel. why? radiation. what does this mean? im only speculating but they(israel) might do something insane within the next 5 days.


Well this guy has cried wolf a billion times before (hoping undoubtedly because he wants it to be true), but John Bolton agrees with you:

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Iran-Warns-Against-Attack-on-Nuclear-Plant-100892969.html


Meantime, the former U.S. representative to the United Nations John Bolton, told U.S. news outlet Fox News that Israel has until the 21st to attack the Bushehr facility.

He said after that point there is too high a risk of spreading radiation. Bolton added that he does not think it is very likely Israel will actually launch an attack in the next week.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Well this guy has cried wolf a billion times before (hoping undoutbly because he wants it to be true), but John Bolton agrees with you:

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Iran-Warns-Against-Attack-on-Nuclear-Plant-100892969.html

Except Vacant thinks they may do something soon, while John Bolton doesn't think this.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Well this guy has cried wolf a billion times before (hoping undoutbly because he wants it to be true), but John Bolton agrees with you:

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Iran-Warns-Against-Attack-on-Nuclear-Plant-100892969.html


i have an absolute fear of a war breaking out. yeah i may sound a bit hysterical but i seriously do not want it to happen.


so please go fuck yourself.

[~Spectre]

i have an absolute fear of a war breaking out. yeah i may sound a bit hysterical but i seriously do not want it to happen.


so please go fuck yourself.

I was talking about Bolton. I'd rather not fuck myself unless no other options present themselves.

[mossy noonmann]

The point that Dan Plesch makes a big deal of is that the so called 'bunker busters' were moved to US bases on diego garcia, and as the follow up article in the herald (i think it was) points out this was instead of moving them to Israel.

the problem that Israel has is that if it attacks Iran and fails to destroy the underground installations, Iran in my view will go hell for leather to get the bomb. Any opposition from inside the Iranian regieme would evaporate.

i'm not sure but i think ,at the moment , Iran is not going to use the fuel from the new plant for its weapons programme. Its playing the long game.

[~Spectre]

The point that Dan Plesch makes a big deal of is that the so called 'bunker busters' were moved to US bases on diego garcia, and as the follow up article in the herald (i think it was) points out this was instead of moving them to Israel.

the problem that Israel has is that if it attacks Iran and fails to destroy the underground installations, Iran in my view will go hell for leather to get the bomb. Any opposition from inside the Iranian regieme would evaporate.

i'm not sure but i think ,at the moment , Iran is not going to use the fuel from the new plant for its weapons programme. Its playing the long game.


Even the United States intelligence services can't actually bring themselves to say that they have evidence that Iran has a weapons program. The propaganda however just assumes that no one will notice that.

Israeli elites themselves seem to be split on the issue of attacking Iran. Most of them seem to hold the position that they can't get it done on an initial strike (and presumably they'd only get one before the airspace around Iran gets shut off). If the war games run by think tanks are correct, the U.S. won't be dragged into the conflict either should Israel go off the leash and attack Iran against orders. There is however a lunatic element inside Israel and the United States that doesn't care for such details.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Bolton wont fucking drop it. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1303892/John-Bolton-Israel-3-days-stop-Iran-developing-nuclear-weapons.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)




Israel has just days to launch a military strike and stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations has warned.
The deadline was set by outspoken former envoy John Bolton, who claimed that time was running out for the West to crush Tehran’s atomic ambitions.
He said Iran is planning to bring its first Bushehr reactor online on Saturday, when a shipment of nuclear fuel will be loaded into the plant’s core.

At that point, he said it would be too late for Israel to attack the facility because it would spread radiation and affect innocent Iranian civilians.
‘Once that uranium, once those fuel rods are very close to the reactor, certainly once they’re in the reactor, attacking it means a release of radiation, no question about it,’ said Mr Bolton.
‘So if Israel is going to do anything against Bushehr it has to move in the next eight days,’ he told Fox News in the U.S.
If the Israelis fail to act, Mr Bolton said: ‘Iran will achieve something that no other opponent of Israel, no other enemy of the United States in the Middle East really has and that is a functioning nuclear reactor.’
But the former diplomat, who served as George Bush’s ambassador to the UN between 2005 and 2009, said he doubted Israel would attack Iran.
‘I’m afraid that they have lost this opportunity,’ he added.



yadda yadda yadda the article goes on but i dont want to paste anymore, just click the link if you care. most of it was covered in these few paragraphs anyways

[progressive_lefty]

I think John Bolton has been playing to much of Call of Duty on his ps3 in his room.