What Is The Most Likely Outcome For The Iran Situation?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,112
930
126
Originally posted by: Frackal
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
Just as the US & the EU & Russia do, Iran has the God-given right to develop whatever means it can to protect itself.

George W. Bush will be the first to tell you that a Country has no allegiance to another when it comes to defending itself. There is nothing Bush & his Regime of goons can do other than sit back and watch the fruits that his (Bush's) tyranny has wraught.

With it's next-door-neighbor, Iraq, being raped by the Bush Regime, it makes good sense that Iran flex its nuclear capabilities and arm itself. Iran is afraid of being the next rape victim...as it logically should be (afraid, that is).

Georgie Porgie is like a little brat who isn't getting his way, and so he'll hold his breath until his face turns blue.


Grow up.

That too.

Now, when oil is no longer omni important to us, we will no longer give a flying rats ass what goes on in the ME. Time to tap our own supplies, and fsck them. When oil is no longer a factor, those such as the iranians will be quieted...and with a quickness. No diplomacy required...either comply or be gone. ;)

Or they can just stay a crazed, rogue, ravine of desert sand, and kill off each other, one by one. Yup, we'll just leave them to take care of themselves, and each other. They've already been doing that for thousands of years, without our help. :Q

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Aimster
None of these groups have anything to do with the U.S.

However, you can argue Iran supports terrorist because the U.S labels Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

gee, I wonder why...

*cough* Beirut 1983...suicide bombings...241 US dead *cough*

The core of the Hezbollah organization (also spelled Hizballah, Hezbullah and other variants, meaning 'Party of God') in Lebanon comes from 'Iranian Revolutionary Guards' sent to Lebanon in 1982, at the time of Israel's invasion of Southern Lebanaon designed to oust the PLO. They went to assist in the establishment of a revolutionary Islamic movement whose members would participate in the 'Jihad', Holy War, against Israel from bases in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley. Inspired by the success of the Iranian Revolution and establishment of an Islamic Republic in Iran, Hezbollah also dreamt of transforming Lebanon's multi-religion state into an Iranian-style Islamic state. Its ideology, as expressed in declarations by its leadership, maintained that Israel had no legitimacy as a state, and that it must be fought until Jerusalem, meaning all of Israel, is liberated.

Following the IDF withdrawal from Lebanon in 1985 the Hezbollah organization consolidated itself by establishing storage depots for weapons, recruiting activists and fighters, and providing widespread aid to residents in South Lebanon, such as the donation of money, equipment, and medical supplies. The aid programs helped Hezbollah gain the support of the local population in favor of the organization's activities against Israel.

Using cover names such as 'Islamic Jihad', 'The Revolutionary Justice Organization' and 'The Islamic Resistance', with the blessings of its religious leaders, Hezbollah has carried out a series of high profile attacks against Israeli targets in southern Lebanon and American and Multinational Forces targets in Lebanon. Hezbollah was responsible for the two explosions in Beirut on October 23, 1983 that killed 241 American Marines and 56 French servicemen sleeping in their barracks. Their attacks became more intensive as well as demonstrating better planning immediately prior to the opening of the peace process in 1991.

In 1991, the Hezbollah was responsible for 52 attacks, as compared to 19 attacks the organization carried out in 1990. In 1992, the Hezbollah launched 63 attacks and in 1993, 158 attacks, when during the course of 'Operation Accountability' they fired hundreds of Katyusha rockets into the Security Zone and Israeli territory. In 1994 a total of 187 attacks against Israeli troops and positions by Hezbollah were recorded. There were 119 instances of artillery fire, 31 detonations of explosive charges and two frontal assaults on IDF positions. In 1995 a total of 344 attacks against Israeli troops and positions by were recorded. There were 270 instances of artillery fire, 64 detonations of explosive charges and 2 frontal assaults on IDF positions.

Hezbollah did not confine the slaughter to Israel and Lebanon. The bloodshed included multiple bombings in Argentina of Israeli and Jewish community facilities, one in Buenos Aires, March 1992 that killed 29 and another in July 1994 that killed 96. [At the time this last event was one of the worst terrorist attacks ever in the Western hemisphere.] Hezbollah is also credited with blowing up a Panamanian airplane in flight.

After the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah announced its intentions to continue to struggle against Israel as a second front supporting the Palestinian Arabs. In March 2002, as Israel carried out its Operation Defensive Shield, Hezbollah increased its cross-border attacks from Lebanon.

Over its two decades, Hezbollah has evolved into a movement with thousands of trained guerrillas, members of the Lebanese parliament and a dynamic welfare program benefiting thousands of Lebanese people. They enjoy considerable support in Lebanon both because their rage against Israel is popular and because their social programs are effective in meeting ground level needs. Since Israel is no longer present in Lebanon, Hezbollah now talks about the elimination of Israel itself calling all of Israel "occupied territory" that has to be "liberated" for Islam.

Hezbollah continues to receive substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid from Iran and Syria. Hezbollah has also benefited from criminal activity in the US developed as a source of funds.

In the summer of 2002 there were indications that Hezbollah was assisting al Qaeda (the organization, headed by Usama Bin Laden, that attacked the United States on September 11, 2001). Despite religious differences ? the Iranian-originated Hezbollah is Shiite, while bin Laden and al Qaeda are Sunni ? the two groups have coordinated on a practical level for years. After their loss of control of Afghanistan, al Qaeda began showing up in Lebanon with hints that Lebanon may be their new base of operations, aided and abetted by Hezbollah.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_hezbollah.php
 

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,942
10
81
Originally posted by: ricknexcept Iraq is not Iran. I imagine their nuclear facilities are probably safe guarded with the best defenses that they can buy. they probably put better defenses around their nuke facilities than they do their own crazy clerical regime. I think the US will do Israel's dirty work. Cuz if Israel does it, then there will not be any peace in the ME for a very very long time. Iraq become democracy? about a snowballs chance in hell. All the muslim world united against Israel, Jordan and Egypt will become hostile neighbors, it will happen.


yes - if hypocritical Israel strikes (hey, Israel is NOT suppose to have nukes either, remember!) - a Middle East cataclysm will occur. "BRING IT ON!" as GWB says.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
It's a no win situation.

Iran doesn't get attacked. Potential for nuclear materials to fall into terrorist hands.

Iran get's attacked. Farewell to Middle East oil. Are we prepared for that and the 10 buck a gallon gas and commensurate inflation? Na. Economic collapse worldwide.

Nice, eh?
 

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It's a no win situation.

Iran doesn't get attacked. Potential for nuclear materials to fall into terrorist hands.

Iran get's attacked. Farewell to Middle East oil. Are we prepared for that and the 10 buck a gallon gas and commensurate inflation? Na. Economic collapse worldwide.

Nice, eh?

I don't buy into the part that they're gonna hand off nuclear materials or devices to terrorists. if they did, and a bomb exploded somewhere, it would leave a signature that led right back to Iran, and then they'd be a glass parking lot within a very short period of time. I do believe they would become dealers in nuclear material and know-how, selling it to other governments, exporting it to Iran-friendly Central and South American governments, as well as other muslim nations. they'd become ultimate proliferators, and bringing it much closer to home.
 

Grunt03

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2000
3,131
0
0
US military forces will start deploying there also, like we don't already have enough....
 

SMOKE20

Senior member
Apr 6, 2004
201
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: SMOKE20
It will be diplomatic..........

Germany, Russia, France, Japan, Canada, the U.K. as well as the US had very stern words for Iran after they broke the seals and even Germany has stated it is in favor of UN SC action.

World to Iran: "We have some stern words for you."

Iran to world: "We do not care."

World to Iran: "We will refer this to the UN SC."

China to UN SC: "VETO!"

World to Iran: "Fine, here are some sanctions."

Iran to World: [soup nazi]"NO OIL FOR YOU!"[/soup nazi]

World to Iran: "Just kidding, no sanctions!"

China & Russia have now agreed UN action will be neccessary if Iran does not cease this activety immeadiately........

 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,112
930
126
Originally posted by: SMOKE20
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: SMOKE20
It will be diplomatic..........

Germany, Russia, France, Japan, Canada, the U.K. as well as the US had very stern words for Iran after they broke the seals and even Germany has stated it is in favor of UN SC action.

World to Iran: "We have some stern words for you."

Iran to world: "We do not care."

World to Iran: "We will refer this to the UN SC."

China to UN SC: "VETO!"

World to Iran: "Fine, here are some sanctions."

Iran to World: [soup nazi]"NO OIL FOR YOU!"[/soup nazi]

World to Iran: "Just kidding, no sanctions!"

China & Russia have now agreed UN action will be neccessary if Iran does not cease this activety immeadiately........

Now we'll have to wait and see if they really mean it.

 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: SMOKE20
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: SMOKE20
It will be diplomatic..........

Germany, Russia, France, Japan, Canada, the U.K. as well as the US had very stern words for Iran after they broke the seals and even Germany has stated it is in favor of UN SC action.

World to Iran: "We have some stern words for you."

Iran to world: "We do not care."

World to Iran: "We will refer this to the UN SC."

China to UN SC: "VETO!"

World to Iran: "Fine, here are some sanctions."

Iran to World: [soup nazi]"NO OIL FOR YOU!"[/soup nazi]

World to Iran: "Just kidding, no sanctions!"

China & Russia have now agreed UN action will be neccessary if Iran does not cease this activety immeadiately........

Where did you see that?
 

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,942
10
81
yeah, i don't see anything about china or russia and the UN/Iran situation in the news so far.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
This is what I found:

Russia, a longtime Iran ally, indicated it could reverse its opposition to bringing Tehran before the Security Council, which could impose sanctions.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia, the United States, the European Union and China would discuss the issue in London next week.

He told Ekho Moskvy radio that Iran's latest move did not violate international law ? but also said that Moscow did not exclude the possibility of turning the Iranian dossier over to the Security Council.

China on Thursday urged more talks, without saying whether it would back taking Tehran to the Security Council.

China "hopes that all parties concerned can exercise restraint and resolve this within the IAEA framework and through peaceful negotiations," Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said in Beijing. "We firmly believe this serves the interests of all parties concerned."

-------------------------------------------

Basically, Russia won't oppose UN SC referral, and China has not decided. But nowhere did either Russia or China call for specific action from the UN SC. My guess is that China will veto all military actions in the interest of preserving their $100 billion LNG contract with Iran. There is a remote possibility of sanctions, but Tehran doesn't really care about those since the ball is in their court economically.
 

SMOKE20

Senior member
Apr 6, 2004
201
0
0
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
yeah, i don't see anything about china or russia and the UN/Iran situation in the news so far.

So now it's my fault you guys don't listen to the news?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States and the European Union's three biggest powers said on Thursday talks with Iran over its nuclear program were at an impasse and that Tehran should be brought before the U.N. Security Council.

Such a move could eventually lead to international sanctions on the world's fourth biggest oil exporter.

Accusing Tehran of defiantly turning its back on the international community, the western powers said it had consistently breached its commitments and failed to show the world its nuclear activities were peaceful.

"Our talks with Iran have reached a dead end," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said after talks in Berlin with his British and French counterparts and European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice joined their call for an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, board of governors to discuss what she called Iran's "defiant" resumption of uranium enrichment work.

"That meeting would be to report Iran's noncompliance with its safeguard obligations to the U.N. Security Council," Rice told a news conference in Washington.

Tehran shot back that it was not worried by the threat of bringing the issue to the Security Council and Iran's chief nuclear negotiator reiterated his country's stance that its nuclear plans were for peaceful means.

"We have already declared that our intention is to do nuclear research, it has nothing to do with enrichment," Ali Larijani told CNN.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Larijani told him in a telephone conversation that Iran was still interested in "serious and constructive negotiations" with the EU3 as long as they did not drag on like the current stalled talks.

The U.N. leader said he had been talking to all sides in the dispute and the issue should remain for now before the IAEA in Vienna and only once that process was exhausted could it go to the Council.

If Iran is referred to the Security Council, it will not automatically face sanctions. Rice said there was a "menu of possibilities" but declined to give any specifics

The EU3 and the United States will also have to gain the support of Russia and China, permanent Council members with veto powers, to send Iran to the Council and for tough action once the case is referred there.

The two have previously resisted referring Iran's case to the Council but Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Iran, a big energy partner of Russia, would lose Moscow's support if it did not resume a moratorium on nuclear research.

"We will find it very difficult to continue our efforts," Interfax quoted Lavrov as saying.

The Russian Foreign Minister stressed the need for close consultation with Moscow and Beijing. "Only if we're together will there be sufficient strength for the Iranians to return to reason," he said.

Seeking an international consensus on sending Iran to the Security Council, Britain said it would host talks of senior foreign ministry officials from the United States, Russia, China and the EU3 next week. Diplomats said these were likely to be held Monday.

Crude oil futures rose on Thursday on the news of possible Council referral. At 12:55 p.m. EST (1755 GMT), crude for delivery in February was up 56 cents at $64.50 a barrel after hitting $65.10, the highest since October 4, on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

DIPLOMATIC DEAD END

The EU3 announcement signified the end of 2-1/2 years of attempts to convince Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment program, which they suspect it intends to use to produce fuel for nuclear weapons.

Tehran raised the stakes on Tuesday when it began to remove IAEA seals on equipment used to enrich uranium. The process can produce fuel for power stations or, if the uranium is highly purified, for bombs.

The EU3 statement said the decision was a clear rejection of its diplomacy and a challenge to the IAEA and the world.

Rice's top diplomat at the U.N., John Bolton, was asked about the possibility of the United States attacking Iran to stop it from getting the bomb.

"The objective we are pursuing is a peaceful and diplomatic effort to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability and it's just not even on the horizon that anything like you've described is contemplated," Bolton said during a question and answer session after giving a speech in the German capital.

EU and U.S. patience with Tehran has been wearing thin for months, with anger rising after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and questioned whether six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust.

(Additional reporting by Louis Charbonneau in Berlin, Irwin Arieff at the United Nations, Saul Hudson in Washington, Sebastian Alison in Brussels, Oleg Shchedrov in Moscow and Madeline Chambers in London)
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
SMOKE, WTF are you talking about:

The EU3 and the United States will also have to gain the support of Russia and China, permanent Council members with veto powers, to send Iran to the Council and for tough action once the case is referred there.

They have yet to gain the support of Russia and China to even send the situation to the UN SC, let alone gain their support to not veto any UN SC actions.
 

SMOKE20

Senior member
Apr 6, 2004
201
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
SMOKE, WTF are you talking about:

The EU3 and the United States will also have to gain the support of Russia and China, permanent Council members with veto powers, to send Iran to the Council and for tough action once the case is referred there.


They have yet to gain the support of Russia and China to even send the situation to the UN SC, let alone gain their support to not veto any UN SC actions.

The two have previously resisted referring Iran's case to the Council but Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Iran, a big energy partner of Russia, would lose Moscow's support if it did not resume a moratorium on nuclear research.

"We will find it very difficult to continue our efforts," Interfax quoted Lavrov as saying.

The Russian Foreign Minister stressed the need for close consultation with Moscow and Beijing. "Only if we're together will there be sufficient strength for the Iranians to return to reason," he said.


Like I said, I can't help you don't watch interviews on the news and I can't copy and paste TV but, they did interview them and it was very clear what was said even through translation. Hell, they even interviewed John Kerry for some reason today and he said Irans actions were very dangerous for them and everyone expected full unilateral support for UN SC sanctions.

 

Meuge

Banned
Nov 27, 2005
2,963
0
0
When Iranians give a nuclear warhead to a bunch of terrorists, there is nearly as much likelyhood of it winding up in Moscow, as in Washington, so despite all their posturing, Russia has nothing to gain from Iran having nuclear weapons. What has to be determined, is how much of a risk they are willing to take with regards to Iranian arms, in order to put pressure on the US and Europe. In other words - what remains to be seen is whether maximizing our losses is more important to the Russian leadership than maximizing their losses.
 

509th

Member
Mar 20, 2005
47
0
0
No, you're not alone. I saw them too and it looks like sentiment is the same unilaterally concerning Irans decsion. Removing the IEAE seals and basicly saying "the hell" with any and all UN mandates has put everyone against them. Kerry was very "point blank" and serious saying he expected full unilateral support in the UN like it was already a done deal.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
And sanctions are what Iran fears the least and what the West fears the most. They are just playing a game of chicken and Iran knows they will win.
 

novon

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,711
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: piasabird
Bombs Away!

Make them an example and bomb the hell out of them.

What is the use of the MOAB and 5,000 lbs bunker busters if you dont use them.

A bunker is not a deep hardened underground facility. Military officials say that small tactical nukes might be necessary to properly disable some of Iran's facilities.

Oh....the irony
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: novon
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: piasabird
Bombs Away!

Make them an example and bomb the hell out of them.

What is the use of the MOAB and 5,000 lbs bunker busters if you dont use them.

A bunker is not a deep hardened underground facility. Military officials say that small tactical nukes might be necessary to properly disable some of Iran's facilities.

Oh....the irony

better them than us. sad but true.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: novon
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: piasabird
Bombs Away!

Make them an example and bomb the hell out of them.

What is the use of the MOAB and 5,000 lbs bunker busters if you dont use them.

A bunker is not a deep hardened underground facility. Military officials say that small tactical nukes might be necessary to properly disable some of Iran's facilities.

Oh....the irony

better them than us. sad but true.

Keep dreaming. Israel might be stupid enough, but the US doesn't need the publicity of pre-emptively dropping nuclear weapons on an Islamic Republic anytime soon. It would set a precedent that would doom our national security for the next decade.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: novon
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: piasabird
Bombs Away!

Make them an example and bomb the hell out of them.

What is the use of the MOAB and 5,000 lbs bunker busters if you dont use them.

A bunker is not a deep hardened underground facility. Military officials say that small tactical nukes might be necessary to properly disable some of Iran's facilities.

Oh....the irony

better them than us. sad but true.

Keep dreaming. Israel might be stupid enough, but the US doesn't need the publicity of pre-emptively dropping nuclear weapons on an Islamic Republic anytime soon. It would set a precedent that would doom our national security for the next decade.

it is my opinion that Israel is going to proudly handle this one themselves. what do they care? after all, the entire Islamic world already hates them! And they are the ones in the most immediate danger. They are also one of the biggest military badasses in the world.

my bet is that their SF and pilots do a number on Iran, and we'll all be waiting and watching from the sidelines...