U.S VS Iran getting close

Municipal and low-level elections in Iran a few weeks go resulted in a major defeat for Ahmadinejad's party. I think that the American leadership may see this as an indication that the Iranian public does not support the reigime's nuclear ambitions. Now I would interpret that to mean that military action is not necessary and it is more effective to simply wait for a political shift. However the Bush Administration might that to mean that if the US did attack it would be welcomed by the Iranian populace.

I'm just suprised that no one posted anything about those elections in this thread.

akihh said:

Source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Hi to all sinodefence forum members from Finland! My first post, please be gentle

Why would Iranian leadership do that? They just threw away much of the political restraints against military intervention.

Imho they might have some ace in their sleeve on which they count on very much. Iranians are skilled diplomats, but bluffing with so high stakes, I don't buy it - their foregin politics no #1 priority has always been regime survival, and now it seems that they don't care.

Any suggestions on this one?

Click to expand...

Personally, I think that Iranians have boldened after seeing the limitations of Israel in Lebanon and USA in Iraq. They think (Rightly/wrongly is disputable) that it is now or never. Either way they will be bombed to stone age so why not go down fighting.

It is funny, when the west gets nuclear or destroys their own sattelites, it is okay. But when Iran tries to get it and all that too under the IAEA SAFEGUARDS, or when China experiments, it is not okay, Eye brows are raised in suspision and explanations are demanded !!

What a hypocracy !!

akihh said:

Why would Iranian leadership do that? They just threw away much of the political restraints against military intervention.


Any suggestions on this one?

Click to expand...

I'll burn some karma and reply to myself via these excerpts:

North Korea is helping Iran to prepare an underground nuclear test similar to the one Pyongyang carried out last year.
...
A senior European defence official told The Daily Telegraph that North Korea had invited a team of Iranian nuclear scientists to study the results of last October's underground test to assist Teheran's preparations to conduct its own — possibly by the end of this year.
...
"All the indications are that the Iranians are working hard to prepare for their own underground nuclear test."

Click to expand...

Source:

This could explain the cockiness that Iranian regime is showing. If this article is valid and there is gonna be anykind of military intervention, time window is closing fast - declared nuclear power is almost intouchable regardless of it's actions.

Finn McCool said:

Municipal and low-level elections in Iran a few weeks go resulted in a major defeat for Ahmadinejad's party. I think that the American leadership may see this as an indication that the Iranian public does not support the reigime's nuclear ambitions. Now I would interpret that to mean that military action is not necessary and it is more effective to simply wait for a political shift. However the Bush Administration might that to mean that if the US did attack it would be welcomed by the Iranian populace.

I'm just suprised that no one posted anything about those elections in this thread.

Click to expand...

Well those elections were a good sign in some way, but I don't believe you can apply that to "elections" on the presidential level. The persons who want to campaign have to be "cleared" by a cleric council if I'm correct. Because of that there is a preselection and many citizens, mostly those who lead a "western" life-style don't even go to "vote". However, a more moderate candidate may succeed in the Feb-'08 elections.
The iranian people in fact do appreciate headway in technology. This is also valid for nuclear energy production. However they are also pragmatic, wich is why there are some/many who say better find a solution with the "west" about that issue instead of bullishly further the program and having to deal with embargos.
I sincerely think that the iranies want to resolve that issue on their own anyway and would NOT welcome to be "freed" by outside force.

Attack against Iran? Maybe. I thought the Bush administration didn't have any more stupid ideas, but yeah, it's coming to it now. And it seems both sides are getting prepared for the worst.

In Iraq, you have several forces: the Mehdi army, which numbers in the tens of thousands (along with millions of sypmhatizers) and who have access to some of the latest equipment and training from Iran (but they haven't used it against the Americans-yet). Then you have the Sunni insurgents who are getting large amounts of money and weapons flowing in from Saudi Arabia and Syria. You then have Al Qaeda, one of the most powerful terrorist organizations on this planet who have now set up an "emirate" in Al Anbar province. All these groups have different agendas, but they have one thing in common and that is to get the US out of Iraq. When push comes to shove, these groups will most likely start to help each other out. They will all become the target of the US military and your enemy's enemy is your friend for a time being.

For Iran, they have a massive land force: nearly five to six million in the Iranian Pasandra alone. Then you have the regular army and the Revolutionary Guards. Then you have the proxies, many of them armed cream crop weaponry. Jesus Christ this will by no doubt get messy.

The US bases in Iraq are simply vulnerable to any ballistic missile attacks by Iran. Iran has massive stockpiles of ballistic missiles (that's where a good chunk of their money goes). Each and every base in Iraq would be hit with volleys of such missiles, thus crippling the American presence in Iraq. And as for the Iranian Kilos, ya, they can definetely sink aircraft carriers, but it will be interesting to see how all of this is played out. Remember, Iran has been preparing for this moment ever since March 2003. Or shall I say after the Iraq-Iran war.

Utelore, I would love to know more about the weapons being used in Iraq by the insurgents. It's pretty bone chilling to find out the Iraqis have .50 caliber anti-material rifles these days...

Also, one very interesting note on the mutating form of the Iraqi insurgency:

Iraqi insurgents dressed as American soldiers, speaking fluent English and driving American made SUV's, went past three checkpoints, into a security center, and killed 5 American soldiers and wounded three others in Karbala. Please take a look at the related CNN report on youtube which I will post later.

Finn McCool said:

Municipal and low-level elections in Iran a few weeks go resulted in a major defeat for Ahmadinejad's party. I think that the American leadership may see this as an indication that the Iranian public does not support the reigime's nuclear ambitions. Now I would interpret that to mean that military action is not necessary and it is more effective to simply wait for a political shift. However the Bush Administration might that to mean that if the US did attack it would be welcomed by the Iranian populace.

I'm just suprised that no one posted anything about those elections in this thread.

Click to expand...

And there has been a lot of internal criticism of Ahmadinejad in Iranian newspapers that have close links to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khameini. He has also been criticised for his poor handling of the economy, uneployment in Iran is about 40% and poverty is rife. Personally I think the Americans have concluded that as Ahmadinejad is in such trouble domestically that the best option is not to launch military strikes but to gradually crank up the pressure militarily, diplomatically and economically in the hope that enough figures in the regime are unnerved and Ahmadinejad is forced to take a more conciliatory line on the nuclear issue. An attack would probably unite the Iranian people behind the regime and would make thinngs a whole lot worse.

Neutral Zone said:

And there has been a lot of internal criticism of Ahmadinejad in Iranian newspapers that have close links to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khameini. He has also been criticised for his poor handling of the economy, uneployment in Iran is about 40% and poverty is rife. Personally I think the Americans have concluded that as Ahmadinejad is in such trouble domestically that the best option is not to launch military strikes but to gradually crank up the pressure militarily, diplomatically and economically in the hope that enough figures in the regime are unnerved and Ahmadinejad is forced to take a more conciliatory line on the nuclear issue. An attack would probably unite the Iranian people behind the regime and would make thinngs a whole lot worse.

Click to expand...

That's the problem. The Iranian people see themselves as a rising power and share the same views as Ahmadinejad when it comes to the nuclear program. Also, I read about Ahmadinejad's toughest opponent who will reside over him: I forgot his name, but the guy is PhD in engineering, also served in the Revolutionary Guards during Iraq-Iran (he was in the air force), and his dad was a truck driver. Very similar to Ahmadinejad and he's pretty anti-American as well. Difference is that he's more reserved when it comes to making outlandish comments. So don't expect any magical changes when the next President of Iran comes along. The nuclear program will not be halted back since it is in the popular support of the Iranian people and tensions will continue to rise between Iran and the US.

Is this at all significant?

Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group to Surge Deploy
By US Navy

SAN DIEGO: USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) Carrier Strike Group (CSG), with more than 5,000 sailors, will surge deploy Jan. 27, while USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) undergoes scheduled maintenance in Yokosuka, Japan.

The Ronald Reagan CSG is deploying under the Navy's Fleet Response Plan (FRP) and will operate in the western Pacific in support of U.S. commitments in the region. FRP provides the U.S. with the ability to respond to any global commitment with flexible and sustainable forces and the ability to rapidly respond to a range of situations on short notice.



Too far from Iran to be significant?

I posted the same story in another thread.

The intresting thing is that CVN-76 was chosen. I returned from it's first deployment in July last year. That is a very short turn around considering a CV usally stays in the US for 12 -20 months before deploying again. I thought the Nimitz would go. It is ready to deploy also and has been in San Diego since the end of her last deployment on 18 FEB '06.

Iran has received all Tor-M1 missile batteries from the Russians. Just in time I guess before things get hotter, wouldn't you agree? :coffee: