• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Tell Me How This Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Now just imagine all this playing out with Saddam still at the helm, by now the US would have drawn down it's forces in the ME to a more sustainable level. Sanctions would have effectively collapsed and Russia, France and China would be looking for deals in exchange for relief from the immense debts that Iraq owed them. Iran would be worried that their Nemesis Iraq will be quickly rearming and for Iraq, the fastest way to rearm is to improve their WMD capability, so now we would have Iraq and Iran working hard to create a nuclear weapon arm and Iraq would have likely gotten a lot of help from Pakistan's Khan who would see Iraq as a effective counter balance to Iran growing power. Just imagine what a 2nd Iran-Iraq war would look like with tactical nukes?

Say what you want about the Iraq war, it effectively put Iraq out of the equation of regional politics for a generation and neutralized the US political will for a decade or so. So the 2 immediate threats to Iran are gone. This is not good for the leadership because they desperately need an external threat while they muck up the internal situation. It's pretty clear there are a lot of people that don't think Iran's nuclear ambitions are worth the price, however most of those people have zero control on the lever's of power. You have a bunch of religious back stabbing nutbars carrying an inferiority complex going back 1350 years. Supported by a militant group of zealouts wannabe Waffen SS, military-industrial tycoons slowly turning into a para-military Mafia running the place, and wanting nukes while meddling in everyone else affairs. What could possibly go wrong.......
 
Reposting this from the "Faling Islamic States" thread, since it speaks to the underlying strategic rational for Iran's actions. If going to war or the threat of nuclear weapons isn't able to achieve the political objectives outlined in the article, then Iran will have been wasting time, energy and resources. Sanctions and other activities have placed great stress on the Iranian regime, so it may collapse due to the inability of the brittle structure to absorb more stress (especially unexpected or unusual stressors). A preference cascade for the Green Revolution might be one of these possible triggers; unconventional militry actions might be another (I'm pretty sure the Iranian regime has been contemplating western military action and possible responses since 1979). Graphics on link:


http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NJ10Ak02.html

The horizon collapses in the Middle East
By Spengler

"In the long run we are all dead," said John Maynard Keynes. To which the pertinent response is: "What do you mean, 'we'?" For most countries, the long run is a point on the horizon that never arrives. In the Middle East, by contrast, the horizon has collapsed in upon the present. It isn't the apocalypse, but in Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Egypt it must be what the apocalypse feels like. "What some hailed as an Arab Spring," I wrote in my September 2011 book How Civilizations Die (and Why Islam is Dying, Too), "is descending into an Arab Nightmare." The descent continues. We are a long way from hitting bottom.

The short-run problems of the Middle East appear intractable because they are irruptions of long-term problems, in a self-aggravating regional disturbance. It's like August 1914, but without the same civilizational implications: at risk are countries that long since have languished on the sidelines of the world economy and culture, and whose demise would have few repercussions for the rest of the world.

Egypt cannot achieve stability under a democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood regime any more than it could under military dictatorship, because 60 years of sham modernization atop a pre-modern substratum have destroyed the country's capacity to function.

Turkey cannot solve its Kurdish problem today because the Kurds know that time is on their side: with a fertility three times that of ethnic Turks, Anatolian Kurds will comprise half the country's military-age population a generation from now.

Syria cannot solve its ethnic and religious civil conflicts because the only mechanism capable of suppressing them - a dictatorship by a religious minority - exhausted its capacity to do so.

Iraq's Shi'ite majority cannot govern in the face of Sunni opposition without leaning on Iran, leaving Iran with the option to destabilize and perhaps, eventually, to dismember the country.

And Iran cannot abandon or even postpone its nuclear ambitions, because the collapse of its currency on the black market during the past two weeks reminds its leaders that a rapidly-aging population and fast-depleting oil reserves will lead to an economic breakdown of a scale that no major country has suffered in the modern era.

When the future irrupts into the present, nations take existential risks. Iran will pursue nuclear ambitions that almost beg for military pre-emption; Egypt will pursue a provocative course of Islamist expansion that cuts off its sources of financial support at a moment of economic desperation; Syria's Alawites, Sunnis, Kurds and Druze will fight to bloody exhaustion; Iraq will veer towards a civil war exacerbated by outside actors; and Turkey will lash out in all directions. And in the West, idealists will be demoralized and realists will be confused, the former by the collapse of interest in deals, the latter by the refusal of all players in those countries to accept reality.

Iran's population is aging faster than any population in the history of the world, its economy is a hydrocarbon monoculture, and its oil is running out.

Figure 1: Iranian Population Ages As Oil Runs Out

Sources: United Nations World Population Prospects: US Department of Energy

About 8% of Iranians are of retirement age now. But Iran's fertility has fallen from seven children per female at the time of the 1979 revolution to around 1.6 at present. When today's bulge generation of young people reaches retirement age, there will be few children to support them, and by mid-century a third of all Iranians will be elderly dependents. Nothing like this sudden shift form pre-modern to post-modern demographics ever has happened. Rich Western countries may not survive the graying of their population. For Iran, with US$4,000 in personal income per capita, low fertility is a national sentence. President Mahmud Ahmadinedjad called it "genocide against the Iranian nation".

Just when Iran most needs hydrocarbon revenues, its oil output will decline sharply. Natural gas exports can offset the decline to some extent, but not entirely. Iran's only chance of survival lies in annexing oil-rich regions on its borders: Bahrain, Iraq's Basra province, parts of Azerbaijan, and ultimately Saudi Arabia's Shi'ite-majority Eastern Province. That is why Iran needs nuclear weapons.

Figure 2: Iran's Population Train Wreck (Click to enlarge)

Iran's fertility collapse is the most extreme example of the trend across the Muslim world. Just behind Iran is Turkey.

Figure 3: Total Fertility Rate in Egypt, Turkey and Iran

Source: UN World Population Prospects

Turkey's overall fertility rate of 2.1 children per female masks a yawning demographic gap between Turkish-speakers, whose fertility rate is just 1.5, and the Kurdish minority, whose fertility is estimated variously at between three and four children per family. Half the military-age men in Anatolian Turkey will have Kurdish as a first language a generation from now.

That is why Kurdish separatists are confident that their guerilla campaign against Turkish security forces ultimately will triumph. There is a demographic time-bomb in the Middle East, but it isn't on the West Bank of the Jordan River, where the Palestinian Arab fertility rate long since converged with the Jewish rate. The map of Anatolia eventually will be redrawn, and probably the adjacent maps of Syria, Iraq and Iran along with it.

Syria's Kurds have become the vanguard of Kurdish hopes for autonomy, raising the Kurdish national flag in Syrian border towns in sight of the Turkish army. Turkey's threat to intervene in Syria's civil war is a bluff. The country's 2 million Kurds are divided among 17 political parties; a minority is cooperating with the Iraq-based Kurdish Workers Party, the main guerilla organization harassing Turkish security forces. Turkish analysts perceive no immediate threat that Syria's Kurds will ally with the independence movement and attempt to establish an independent Kurdistan in the foreseeable future, as Mesut Cevikalp wrote in August. If Turkish troops entered Syria, the Kurds would unite against Turkey.

Turkey's raids on Kurdish guerillas across the Iraqi border, meanwhile, prompted Iraq to threaten an alliance with Iran. That is the last thing that Ankara wants: the Turkish economy is living on credit from the Gulf states, which are paying for Turkey to contain Iran. If Turkey's internal problems push Iraq into the Iranian camp, making itself more of a nuisance than a help to the Sunni Gulf States, this arrangement will be in jeopardy.

Figure 4: Turkey's Rising Dependence on Short-Term Foreign Debt

Source: Central Bank of Turkey

Turkey's current account deficit is running at 8% to 10% of gross domestic product, about the same level as Greece before its financial collapse. Short-term debt doubled since 2010 to cover the deficit, most of it borrowed by Turkish banks from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States. That looks more like a political subsidy than a financial investment. For all of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's grandiosity, Riyadh has Turkey on a short leash.

"The Syrian civil war is now evidence of how much Turkey overestimated itself in its dreams of great power status," wrote the German daily Die Welt on October 6. "A year and a half ago, Foreign Minister [Ahmet] Davutoglu said that no-one could undertake anything in the entirety of the Middle East without first asking Turkey. But in the intervening year and a half, the supposed great power hasn't been able to get things in order at its own front door."

There is no Turkish solution for Syria. There is no Saudi or Jordanian solution, because the two conservative monarchies fear that the Muslim Brotherhood will dominate the Sunni opposition. Saudi Arabia fears the Muslim Brotherhood, the only credible organized opposition to the corrupt and feckless monarchy. The Jordanian monarchy already is under siege from the Muslim Brotherhood, which organized "reform" demonstrations last week demanding limits on the monarchy's power.

And there is no American solution for Syria. Robert Worth reported in the New York Times October 7 that Sunni Arab countries won't provide Syrian rebels with shoulder-fired missiles and anti-tank weapons out of fear that terrorists might obtain them. After Washington's embarrassment in Benghazi, compounded by the appearance that the Obama administration suppressed intelligence reports of al-Qaeda activities in Libya and Syria, American caution is understandable.

No-one in the region wants Syria's Sunnis to win, but no-one wants them to lose, either. The Syrian standoff is likely to continue into the indefinite future, lowering the cost of Arab life in the market of world opinion.

Egypt lacks all of the elements for successful economic development. Its population is 45% illiterate; its university graduates are almost without exception incompetent; it has insufficient water from the Nile to expand agriculture; its existing agriculture is inefficient and leaves the country dependent on imports for half its food; its population is for the most part pre-modern, with a 30% rate of consanguineous marriage and a 90% rate of female genital mutilation.

The bad news is that none of the major countries in the region can be kept from falling, and once fallen, they cannot be put back together again. The good news is that the bad news is not so bad. As long as the calamity is restricted to the region, and prospective malefactors are prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons, the impact on the rest of the world will be surprisingly small.

Spengler is channeled by David P Goldman. His book How Civilizations Die (and why Islam is Dying, Too) was published by Regnery Press in September 2011. A volume of his essays on culture, religion and economics, It's Not the End of the World - It's Just the End of You, also appeared last fall, from Van Praag Press.
 
cupper said:
And what do you base all of this on? Iran's track record on supporting human rights, fighting terrorism and promoting peace and security in the middle east? :sarcasm:


You should be worried. Delusion does not enter into the picture (except if you believe that there is no way we could stumble into another Gulf Conflict). Cultural differences play a big part in this, and it is easy for one side to misinterpret the actions or motives of the other, and escalate the tensions.


I suggest you go back and read the article I posted previously that discussed the wargaming of a potential reaction to an Iranian sponsored terrorist attack and the potential for leading to an all out military conflict in the Gulf.

I can see where you're coming from and I politely disagree with you.

What is your definition of human rights? We will cross reference your definition with examples in the United States. Have you been to Iran? Have you met people from Iran?  What you hear or read on CNN is not always the truth. Political rhetoric on all sides is nothing short of nauseating.

Where did I state that it is simply not possible for the entire region to be engulfed with war? I am stating that one country is not as daft as you think they are . Correct, cultural and religious differences play a huge role when it comes to Western influence in the region. This I shake my head when I hear people calling for preemptive strikes, ESPECIALLY ISRAEL! How do they think it will end? With an American dominated middle east? Israel does not want Iran gaining a Nuclear weapon, why? Pull up a map. I personally do not think it has to do with nuclear weapons. Unless of course Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt all agree to lose their surrounding territories, which I think you may agree is a bit far fetched. So what is left is everything but. So I say again, any attack on Israel would cause said aggressors country to be attacked by 20+ foreign nations. You do not have to be a military strategist OR listen to Mitt Romney to agree with this.

Do you by any chance know how Iran dealt  with captured "terrorists" in the past ? Have we forgotten that Iran refused to deal with or legitimize the Taliban prior to the 2003 Iraq invasion? Some will argue Afghanistan; but based on my own research, Iraq was the turning point. Though as I said earlier, I am not a historian. I just like to gather points from each side and try to logic out what is BS and what is not.

Once again, there is plenty of blame to go around!
 
skyhigh10 said:
Israel does not want Iran gaining a Nuclear weapon, why? Pull up a map. I personally do not think it has to do with nuclear weapons.
OK, so if it's not for them having the weaons, why do you think Israel does not want a nuclear armed Iran?
 
Journeyman said:
OK, so if it's not for them having the weaons, why do you think Israel does not want a nuclear armed Iran?

If I was the Isreali PM, I would be afraid of losing my nuclear edge more than being attacked by an Iranian weapon.  I (The PM) am well protected by my AD and AF but another nation in the region being nuclear blunts my nuclear spearpoint.  Politics is at the root of all evil!
 
Yes, but skyhigh10 has implied it's something to do with geography ("pull out a map") rather than Iran having a nuclear strike capability......and I just don't get his point.
 
fraserdw said:
If I was the Isreali PM, I would be afraid of losing my nuclear edge more than being attacked by an Iranian weapon.  I (The PM) am well protected by my AD and AF but another nation in the region being nuclear blunts my nuclear spearpoint.  Politics is at the root of all evil!

Exactly.

Journeyman said:
Yes, but skyhigh10 has implied it's something to do with geography ("pull out a map") rather than Iran having a nuclear strike capability......and I just don't get his point.

I quote from my original message:

Unless of course Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt all agree to lose their surrounding territories,  ..aka, areas located around Israel. Do you understand what I mean now? Can Iran guarantee not one ounce of radioactive material will touch another countries soil? Of course not. So you're more or less making the assumption that Iran is stupid enough to use a nuclear weapon in the region ; at which point their country will be decimated in a matter of hours. You don't think that there quick response plans written for such an occasion ? Hell, the Yanks even had plans to invade Canada and use poison gas. Do not judge the source but this is just a rundown. Believe it or not, a bit scary don't you think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_plan_red 

So, why does Israel not want Iran to become a nuclear power? Last I heard Pakistan wasn't too fond of Israel , and they have them. So what the hell is so special about Iran?  Tell me what you think ...
 
I think he implied, nuke or not a attack against Israel would be just outright stupid hence nothing to worry about.
 
I'm not making 'stupid assumptions' or arguing either way, and your subsequent response (increased attitude notwithstanding), as written, suggests you believe that Israel doesn't want Iran to have nukes because they're concerned radioactive fallout may reach Syria or Jordan.  ???

No, I'm merely trying to understand what you mean when you say,
Israel does not want Iran gaining a Nuclear weapon, why? Pull up a map. I personally do not think it has to do with nuclear weapons.

"Do you understand what I mean now?"
 
Journeyman said:
I'm not making 'stupid assumptions' or arguing either way, and your subsequent response (increased attitude notwithstanding), as written, suggests you believe that Israel doesn't want Iran to have nukes because they're concerned radioactive fallout may reach Syria or Jordan.  ???

No, I'm merely trying to understand what you mean when you say, 

"Do you understand what I mean now?"

Nobody else seems to have a problem reading or comprehending what i'm writing. Please consult my messages yet again. I said you're implying that "IRAN" is stupid enough ...    I did not disrespect you by saying YOU made stupid assumptions. The proof is above, please read it.

""""Israel does not want Iran gaining a Nuclear weapon, why? Pull up a map. I personally do not think it has to do with nuclear weapons"""". 

I was stating aloud, Israel does not want Iran to gain a nuclear weapon, why?  I ASK.... On a completely separate note....  I say pull out a map and look at the territory. I then said I do not think it has to do with nukes at all.

For the third time , Iran will NOT use a nuclear weapon again Israel given the consequences it would have on surrounding countries. Do you understand?  If a CF18 dropped a JDAM on my house because they were under the impression I was the Antichrist,  it may in fact damage some surrounding homes and make people a little bit upset (even though the jet and the people are on the same side) . 

So i'm stating that ....  Israel does NOT want to attack Iran because of a nuclear weapon.  So what else could they be upset about? That is my question to you. Why else would they want a war with Iran.  You tell me.

Hope this clarifies
 
I was going to reply and try to figure out where skyhigh10 was going with his line of argument, but the last post finally convinced me that this is just like my dog chasing his tail.
 
Yeah, you are losing me too.  Imagine that Isreal is upset, maybe, they have decided to act like arabs and just be upset at everything!
 
don't 99% of the articles imply this will be a surgical strike implying also that this will not be a war but simply a special force disabling the capabilities?
 
xer0 said:
don't 99% of the articles imply this will be a surgical strike implying also that this will not be a war but simply a special force disabling the capabilities?

Wouldn't that lead to a war?
 
cupper said:
I was going to reply and try to figure out where skyhigh10 was going with his line of argument, but the last post finally convinced me that this is just like my dog chasing his tail.

Was pretty simply really. Iran cannot attack Israel because the repercussions would be too great. Israel knows this. So why do they keep pulling the nuclear weapons scare card?  No , still don't get it? 
 
OK, I get your point, lets put it in the open.  You are saying that Isreal is using Iran nuclear ambitions to suck good will and money out of the West, particularly the Great Satan!  Oui, non, yes?
 
>Have you been to Iran? Have you met people from Iran?

In this kind of discussion it is best to separate the "people of X" from "the government of X".  Customarily, when people gripe about "the Iranians" or "the Chinese" or any other "people", it is the government that is the target of their criticism.
 
Brad Sallows said:
>Have you been to Iran? Have you met people from Iran?

In this kind of discussion it is best to separate the "people of X" from "the government of X".  Customarily, when people gripe about "the Iranians" or "the Chinese" or any other "people", it is the government that is the target of their criticism.


Absolutely! Keep in mind though that the government often says one thing but really means another. The president of Iran can run his mouth all he likes at home, but when he's in the public eye he smartens up (usually). The same can be said for the POTUS.

FraserDW, 


I don't know where the hell you got "Israel sucks good will and money out of the west" from anything I wrote above. I think Israel thrives off being the little guy with 15 or so BIG friends.  Starting a war with Iran when your friends don't really back you isn't a smart move. So maybe instigate a little bit and try to draw them in? Why ? No idea. But the nuclear "scare" is a lie.
 
skyhigh10 said:
I don't know where the hell you got "Israel sucks good will and money out of the west" from anything I wrote above. I think Israel thrives off being the little guy with 15 or so BIG friends.  Starting a war with Iran when your friends don't really back you isn't a smart move. So maybe instigate a little bit and try to draw them in? Why ? No idea. But the nuclear "scare" is a lie.

He got it because your arguments are all over the place and have little or no coherent thread. Hence my comment:

I was going to reply and try to figure out where skyhigh10 was going with his line of argument, but the last post finally convinced me that this is just like my dog chasing his tail.

 
cupper said:
He got it because your arguments are all over the place and have little or no coherent thread. Hence my comment:

It almost seems like you just post for the sake of  being confrontational which is quite unfortunate.

My  :2c:  on the matter was actually very specific and was reinforced four times. Never mind the fact other users responded in kind because they can read between the lines. Even though I clarified my original post and you now understand what i'm saying, the important thing here is to focus on something that was rectified. It's important to shout down anyone you disagree with. I asked you to prove why I was on the wrong track. In this thread we have people calling for attacks on Iran. So excuse me while I play devils advocate for a bit and question the idea of getting involved in a full scale war.

1) If Iran ever attacked Israel, the west would respond in full force. So, my original post. Do  you really think Iran's leadership is that insane? I guess so.

2)Israel is calling for preemptive attacks weekly. I'm asking why? I think nuclear weapons are the least of Israels concern. Makes for good media coverage though don't you think?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top