Obama: Sanction Israel Not Iran

[quote]EvenIfItsSushi wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Ug, I wish Biden were president.[/quote]

Cause a Jewish man would ‘do the right thing’ and stand by Israel? Not sure how long this idea will hold. Jewish people are fast drifting away from supporting Zionism these days.[/quote]

Biden is Jewish? Since when?
No, I think Biden is less stupid and arrogant than obama. He sounds more stupid.
I don’t know. It’s a joke. I am saying that my dog is smarter than obama.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]EvenIfItsSushi wrote:
A lot of them are not really facts but myths propagated as part of the Zionist propaganda machine.[/quote]

Then fucking list them, and list out the “factual” occurrences then.

This is like the 3rd time someone has detailed a long post and you’ve got no come back other than “you’re racist”.

Fuck. Up your trolling game, this shit sucks.

Followed by a bunch of questions and still playing the race card when it has dick to do with anything the thread was created for.

We get it, you hate Jews. Now either contribute or go back to ihatedajewzzzz.chan.

[/quote]

Well, he had the “fact” that Joe Biden was Jewish so far.

I’m sure his other “facts” are just as accurate.

You guy’s are missing the point on this one.

The big threat right now is Russia, as it will always be until China has time to build up its military. This Ukraine stuff is serious, and we’re moving back towards a cold war stance and it might go hot in the form of a proxy war. The nuclear rhetoric has already been used and I would not count on Putin bluffing.

Iran knows where it stands, and the main threat from the middle East countries is a terrorist attack which will hurt America but it is not an existential threat.

Russia has some things working for them, mainly controlling natural gas into eastern Europe and the EU. The answer to this is to move it from Qatar but it has to go through Syria. Syria is an Iranian ally and some say proxy. They are also allied with Russia. We need build a shared interest with Iran to get their support in negotiating a solution to the Syrian situation, to reduce Russia’s strong hand controlling European energy markets and weaken Russian/Iran and Syria relations. Additionally, Iran is as threatened with a Sunni insurgency at their doorstep as anybody else. There’s really a lot there to work with.

The same dynamic is playing out with Cuba, and relations are being thawed as Russia has again began courting Cuba. At least we will need an embassy, and enough of a diplomatic relationship to run effective intelligence operations to see what the Russians are doing. I doubt the Cubans will ever be an ally, and like the middle East they realize playing both sides can be quite profitable.

I don’t want to piss on Israel too much, but their original role was to act as a geopolitical stabilizer to the region, and one respectful of American interests. The Islamist/Jihadist Arabs are already out of control, Israel would like to do something but without US support a decisive victory is unlikely, especially given the US’s failures over the past decade. Right now, the US has bigger concerns and given the Jews moving towards a hardline stance and focusing on their interests, they need to realize who they are a small fish and would have been destroyed several times over without US backing.

As much as some of you like to crap on Obama, he’s not as much of a pussy as you think, and is moving back to the older, quieter ways of handling things. I think this is a welcome change from the previous administrations overly overt attempts at manipulation / running the US empire that have dramatically backfired.

Edited to fix quotes…hopefully…

[quote]theuofh wrote:
You guy’s are missing the point on this one.

[/quote]

You guys? Which guys?

You mean the biggest threat to the United States is Russia? I’m aware of the geopolitical place of Russia in the international “community.” And your point about Russia is…

We’re already fighting proxy wars with Russia. And a “Cold War stance?” Obama’s term in office has been characterised by weakness, incoherency and appeasement/unilateral disengagement. This is not criticism or even subjective interpretation; it’s simple fact. He ran in '08 as the anti-war candidate against McCain and the '08 election was a choice by the electorate to “end the wars”. His(Obama’s) first actions on the international stage were apologetics and submissive displays of weakness. However, his policy of unilateral disengagement has not been consistently adhered to. He(Obama) has an ideological faith in enlightened mob rule that manifests itself in unconditional support for democratic forces in the Middle East; forces such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Hamas and the PA in the territories; an alignment that functions to serve the foreign policy schemes of the radical theocratic regime in Qatar.

Russia, as during the Cold War, is aligned against the west and subverts former Soviet satellite states in Central Asia to expand their oil and gas industry. In this “great game”, that has been going on since the 18th Century, Russia is today backing the Iranian/Shia faction in the current civil war; a war that did not get going until Bashar al Assad turned down a Gulf > Syrian > Turkish > EU pipeline scheme. The Arab-Israeli conflict is incidental to the larger geopolitical landscape however the recent discoveries of vast energy reserves in Israeli waters, together with the Israeli/Cyprus strategic energy consortium will change the landscape in the current years with Israel becoming a key player.

Russia’s geopolitical grand strategy is quite predictable. Moscow sees the world through the lens of the “heartland theory:”

From the Russian perspective, Russia is the centre of the earth; the naval. Russia dominates the Eurasian landmass and therefore the world’s natural resources. The US is seen as their main enemy of course, and the current regime has fostered a populist zeitgeist of anti-liberalism and opposition to the Pax Americana, or what they would call the “dominance” of the United States in geopolitics. They seek to undermine the institutional stability that the United States has maintained since 1942.

The Russian populist nationalists support the same anti-Western Marxist/socialist regimes that the Soviets backed during the Cold War and they lament the tide of democratic movements after 1990 which they see as an American political/cultural force that entails the loss of Russian influence. The Russian nationalists are essentially Bolsheviks; indeed Aleksandr Dugin has embraced the label. Dugin’s vision is to annex the former Soviet states and satellites and rebuild the Soviet Union. This is what lies at the heart of all Russian nationalists and is manifest in their irredentism in Eastern and Central Europe and their aggressive expansion into Central Asia.

As I said, the Russians are predictable and their actions can be easily understood as they conform to the overall heartland strategy and Russia’s energy interests. We have far more to fear from an accidental nuclear altercation occurring.

Are you trying to say they’re rational actors? This is only true of the secular Persian nationalists; not so for the revolutionary, apocalyptic twelver cult; specifically the crazy Mullahs and their Revolutionary Guard. They’re unpredictable and far more dangerous for many reasons, not least of which is their genocidal malevolence and the fact that their apocalyptic eschatology informs their foreign policy; indeed it underlies their decision to go nuclear. The craziest hard liners in the twelver cult see the bomb is the essential key with which to bring about the last war of mankind; a war that entails the capture of the Temple Mount and the annihilation of the Jews.

Who mentioned existential threats? We’re talking about the grand strategy of the West and Russia and how they relate to the Middle East and oil and gas. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make…

Yes, you’re basically right so far…

We need a “shared interest” with our main enemy? I’m not sure what you’re suggesting. The United States has been in existential conflict with the Iranian regime since its founding upon the blood of Americans on diplomatic territory(US Embassy). They’re an anti-American regime that is so radical we’ve hardly even talked to them in their 35-year existence. They don’t want to talk to us. There is nothing to talk about. They have an agenda that is fundamentally opposed to the interests of the US. Like many of these tinpot regimes, they oppose the United States as a matter of course. Their objectives are not limited and negotiable; their objectives are maximalist and their fundamental objective is the annihilation of the United States. Whether or not they’re capable of presenting a serious threat to the US is a different question. The point here is that their policy is informed by this existential conflict. That’s why it’s not possible to “negotiate” with the Iranians. You can’t negotiate with people whose primary goal is to annihilate you.

Incorrect. Iran doesn’t have a significant Sunni population so they can’t have a Sunni insurgency in country. Iran is largely immune from the entire civil war for this reason. It threatens its partner al Assad of course, but it cannot spread into Iran because there is simply no Sunni populace there to house an insurgency. The only card we have in Iran is the secular, democratic reformists and the Kurdish separatists.

See above. We should’ve supported the secular reform protests there a few years ago but Obama ignored them and let them fizzle out.

Huh?

Yes, Russia is moving back into Cuba and arming up in a big way.

I’m not sure what “sides” you say Cuba are playing. Cuba and Russia have common interests in their foreign policy which is anti-American first and foremost.

I don’t know where you think this “role” was expressed or why Israel has some obligation to appease “American interests”. Israel fought all its wars itself and doesn’t owe anyone anything. They should do what is in their interests, which happens to be in our interests too. Our respective foreign policies are not in opposition; on the contrary they are aligned.

Lol! This is nonsense. Israel had no support from anyone during the War of Independence and certainly none from the US. The IDF was initially armed by the Czechs until the Soviets turned against them. They then supplied themselves from France. Israel has never been reliant on US arms or aid. They have a close relationship and share technology, especially since the 80’s, but Israel has never been reliant on the US. You clearly don’t know much about the history of the modern state of Israel if you think they’re reliant on the US.

And they haven’t taken any “hard line” stance. Quite the opposite in my opinion. Netanyahu has acted with a great deal of restraint.

Anyway, it’s pretty strange that you think Israel owes the US some enormous debt or something and that they need to be “respectful” of US interests. Where do you get this shit? Israel is a sovereign nation state and owes you nothing and where they build settlements should be of no concern to you. The US has no right to impose restrictions on Israel.

Moving back to the “old quieter ways” of doing things? What are you talking about? Do you even know what you’re talking about? Everyone thinks Obama’s foreign policy has been a disaster. And as I said, it’s not even coherent. Just bad mistakes and floundering and playing with fire. And he’s set his toy box ablaze. He doesn’t have any fucking idea what he’s doing. And he’s pathetically naive - it’s so old hat. This belief in enlightened mob rule; in democratic peace theory - you just watch what Obama does and you can predict with certainty that it will fuck up. Only an infantile idealist would try to apply democratic peace theory to the Middle East and hope for the best.

[quote]

I think this is a welcome change from the previous administrations overly overt attempts at manipulation / running the US empire that have dramatically backfired. [/quote]

There is no US “empire”. That’s what kooks on the far left talk about but it doesn’t exist. It’s a figment of your own imagination. There is no empire and there never was. And you haven’t explained exactly what it is Obama is doing that you approve of. Doing things the “older, quieter way?” What the hell does that mean?

You don’t seem to have a grasp of the basics of foreign policy. It’s not an area that you have any proficiency in. I’m not trying to be rude but your post is really quite…well, wrong and kind of incoherent.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Edited to fix quotes…hopefully…

[quote]theuofh wrote:
You guy’s are missing the point on this one.

[/quote]

You guys? Which guys?

You mean the biggest threat to the United States is Russia? I’m aware of the geopolitical place of Russia in the international “community.” And your point about Russia is…

We’re already fighting proxy wars with Russia. And a “Cold War stance?” Obama’s term in office has been characterised by weakness, incoherency and appeasement/unilateral disengagement. This is not criticism or even subjective interpretation; it’s simple fact. He ran in '08 as the anti-war candidate against McCain and the '08 election was a choice by the electorate to “end the wars”. His(Obama’s) first actions on the international stage were apologetics and submissive displays of weakness. However, his policy of unilateral disengagement has not been consistently adhered to. He(Obama) has an ideological faith in enlightened mob rule that manifests itself in unconditional support for democratic forces in the Middle East; forces such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Hamas and the PA in the territories; an alignment that functions to serve the foreign policy schemes of the radical theocratic regime in Qatar.

Russia, as during the Cold War, is aligned against the west and subverts former Soviet satellite states in Central Asia to expand their oil and gas industry. In this “great game”, that has been going on since the 18th Century, Russia is today backing the Iranian/Shia faction in the current civil war; a war that did not get going until Bashar al Assad turned down a Gulf > Syrian > Turkish > EU pipeline scheme. The Arab-Israeli conflict is incidental to the larger geopolitical landscape however the recent discoveries of vast energy reserves in Israeli waters, together with the Israeli/Cyprus strategic energy consortium will change the landscape in the current years with Israel becoming a key player.

Russia’s geopolitical grand strategy is quite predictable. Moscow sees the world through the lens of the “heartland theory:”

From the Russian perspective, Russia is the centre of the earth; the naval. Russia dominates the Eurasian landmass and therefore the world’s natural resources. The US is seen as their main enemy of course, and the current regime has fostered a populist zeitgeist of anti-liberalism and opposition to the Pax Americana, or what they would call the “dominance” of the United States in geopolitics. They seek to undermine the institutional stability that the United States has maintained since 1942.

The Russian populist nationalists support the same anti-Western Marxist/socialist regimes that the Soviets backed during the Cold War and they lament the tide of democratic movements after 1990 which they see as an American political/cultural force that entails the loss of Russian influence. The Russian nationalists are essentially Bolsheviks; indeed Aleksandr Dugin has embraced the label. Dugin’s vision is to annex the former Soviet states and satellites and rebuild the Soviet Union. This is what lies at the heart of all Russian nationalists and is manifest in their irredentism in Eastern and Central Europe and their aggressive expansion into Central Asia.

As I said, the Russians are predictable and their actions can be easily understood as they conform to the overall heartland strategy and Russia’s energy interests. We have far more to fear from an accidental nuclear altercation occurring.

Are you trying to say they’re rational actors? This is only true of the secular Persian nationalists; not so for the revolutionary, apocalyptic twelver cult; specifically the crazy Mullahs and their Revolutionary Guard. They’re unpredictable and far more dangerous for many reasons, not least of which is their genocidal malevolence and the fact that their apocalyptic eschatology informs their foreign policy; indeed it underlies their decision to go nuclear. The craziest hard liners in the twelver cult see the bomb is the essential key with which to bring about the last war of mankind; a war that entails the capture of the Temple Mount and the annihilation of the Jews.

Who mentioned existential threats? We’re talking about the grand strategy of the West and Russia and how they relate to the Middle East and oil and gas. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make…

Yes, you’re basically right so far…

We need a “shared interest” with our main enemy? I’m not sure what you’re suggesting. The United States has been in existential conflict with the Iranian regime since its founding upon the blood of Americans on diplomatic territory(US Embassy). They’re an anti-American regime that is so radical we’ve hardly even talked to them in their 35-year existence. They don’t want to talk to us. There is nothing to talk about. They have an agenda that is fundamentally opposed to the interests of the US. Like many of these tinpot regimes, they oppose the United States as a matter of course. Their objectives are not limited and negotiable; their objectives are maximalist and their fundamental objective is the annihilation of the United States. Whether or not they’re capable of presenting a serious threat to the US is a different question. The point here is that their policy is informed by this existential conflict. That’s why it’s not possible to “negotiate” with the Iranians. You can’t negotiate with people whose primary goal is to annihilate you.

Incorrect. Iran doesn’t have a significant Sunni population so they can’t have a Sunni insurgency in country. Iran is largely immune from the entire civil war for this reason. It threatens its partner al Assad of course, but it cannot spread into Iran because there is simply no Sunni populace there to house an insurgency. The only card we have in Iran is the secular, democratic reformists and the Kurdish separatists.

See above. We should’ve supported the secular reform protests there a few years ago but Obama ignored them and let them fizzle out.

Huh?

Yes, Russia is moving back into Cuba and arming up in a big way.

I’m not sure what “sides” you say Cuba are playing. Cuba and Russia have common interests in their foreign policy which is anti-American first and foremost.

I don’t know where you think this “role” was expressed or why Israel has some obligation to appease “American interests”. Israel fought all its wars itself and doesn’t owe anyone anything. They should do what is in their interests, which happens to be in our interests too. Our respective foreign policies are not in opposition; on the contrary they are aligned.

Lol! This is nonsense. Israel had no support from anyone during the War of Independence and certainly none from the US. The IDF was initially armed by the Czechs until the Soviets turned against them. They then supplied themselves from France. Israel has never been reliant on US arms or aid. They have a close relationship and share technology, especially since the 80’s, but Israel has never been reliant on the US. You clearly don’t know much about the history of the modern state of Israel if you think they’re reliant on the US.

And they haven’t taken any “hard line” stance. Quite the opposite in my opinion. Netanyahu has acted with a great deal of restraint.

Anyway, it’s pretty strange that you think Israel owes the US some enormous debt or something and that they need to be “respectful” of US interests. Where do you get this shit? Israel is a sovereign nation state and owes you nothing and where they build settlements should be of no concern to you. The US has no right to impose restrictions on Israel.

Moving back to the “old quieter ways” of doing things? What are you talking about? Do you even know what you’re talking about? Everyone thinks Obama’s foreign policy has been a disaster. And as I said, it’s not even coherent. Just bad mistakes and floundering and playing with fire. And he’s set his toy box ablaze. He doesn’t have any fucking idea what he’s doing. And he’s pathetically naive - it’s so old hat. This belief in enlightened mob rule; in democratic peace theory - you just watch what Obama does and you can predict with certainty that it will fuck up. Only an infantile idealist would try to apply democratic peace theory to the Middle East and hope for the best.

[quote]

I think this is a welcome change from the previous administrations overly overt attempts at manipulation / running the US empire that have dramatically backfired. [/quote]

There is no US “empire”. That’s what kooks on the far left talk about but it doesn’t exist. It’s a figment of your own imagination. There is no empire and there never was. And you haven’t explained exactly what it is Obama is doing that you approve of. Doing things the “older, quieter way?” What the hell does that mean?

You don’t seem to have a grasp of the basics of foreign policy. It’s not an area that you have any proficiency in. I’m not trying to be rude but your post is really quite…well, wrong and kind of incoherent.[/quote]

Your argument’s tend to be drastically skewed your theory as Obama as a born and raised radical. What you tend to not discuss, is the role of the NSC, State Department, and Obama’s advisors in forming the foreign policy of the United States. Many of whom are not from Obama’s ideological camp. To think that Washington, D.C. as a whole, many of whom are very shrewd pragmatists, would go all in on some political science theory is a mistake.

We are basically in agreement with the geopolitical significance of Russia, however this board generally seems to vastly over-rate the role of “puppet” states, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, etc., in their ability to create genuine threats and crisis on the world stage. Historically, these countries only become significant when acting in concert with a major player (Cuban Missile Crisis) or when they team up (OPEC).

For a foreign policy to be considered coherent, it needs to somehow needs to integrate generally separate concerns into an overall grand strategy. This is something that I agree has been lacking probably since Clinton and especially since Bush II. People tend to overlook the continuity of government, and how senior members of the DC establishment tend to retain positions of influence between administration changes.

My argument is very simple, Russia currently and China in the very near future, are the countries that need our main focus. In order to mitigate or manage their influence over the puppet states, we need to start preparing the battlefield for relations to deteriorate much more significantly. This means at least opening up diplomatic relations with our historical antagonists so that our presence in their sphere of influence and borders is at least tolerated.

Israel, does not have the population to fight a conventional war. They have a good economy and a defense industry, but they do not turn down American aid or weapons. Despite their sovereign goals, they are a card to be played by either side. As a pragmatist, you can surely understand this. At this point, there is a greater threat of Unilateral Jewish action against the Muslim states, than the Muslim states acting unilaterally against Israel. It is hard to create a coherent foreign policy for the pro-America team without cooperation from our allies.

By the older, quieter ways of doing things, I simply mean Obama has resorted to drone strikes and shadow wars in dealing with a great deal of Islamists. You can’t really do this in established countries, but in the backwater countries, it’s much easier.

Your side of the camp tends to avoid the word “empire” and even goes to great lengths to argue that the US is not an “empire”. I can see where it generally plays into the language of the opposition. You can call it whatever you want, but given that the US has been able to influence the world economic system to sanction Russia and Iran, and by influence I mean direct that is a great deal of power in the hands of the US.

What are you talking about? Israel has one of the most battle ready and battle tested armies on earth with experience fighting and defeating Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian forces and asymmetric forces like Hezbollah and Palestinian terrorists. They have a population of over 7.7 million with universal conscription; advanced fighter jets, space assets, advanced missile and missile defence systems, world class intelligence and pilot for pilot the best airforce in the world. How are they “not capable of fighting a conventional war?”

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

What are you talking about? Israel has one of the most battle ready and battle tested armies on earth with experience fighting and defeating Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian forces and asymmetric forces like Hezbollah and Palestinian terrorists. They have a population of over 7.7 million with universal conscription; advanced fighter jets, space assets, advanced missile and missile defence systems, world class intelligence and pilot for pilot the best airforce in the world. How are they “not capable of fighting a conventional war?”[/quote]

Assume we are speaking about a war with Iran and you are Israel, How would you go about winning the confrontation?

I’d argue that it would be very difficult for them to go at it alone.

Strategic bombing is one thing, and even that is easier said than done, but a sustained ground operation would be near impossible. They do not have the resources or support in the region.

Limited operations into neighboring countries is one thing, but without NATO support, they will not be effective in mitigating any threats posed by Iran.

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

What are you talking about? Israel has one of the most battle ready and battle tested armies on earth with experience fighting and defeating Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian forces and asymmetric forces like Hezbollah and Palestinian terrorists. They have a population of over 7.7 million with universal conscription; advanced fighter jets, space assets, advanced missile and missile defence systems, world class intelligence and pilot for pilot the best airforce in the world. How are they “not capable of fighting a conventional war?”[/quote]

Assume we are speaking about a war with Iran and you are Israel, How would you go about winning the confrontation?

I’d argue that it would be very difficult for them to go at it alone.

Strategic bombing is one thing, and even that is easier said than done, but a sustained ground operation would be near impossible. They do not have the resources or support in the region.

Limited operations into neighboring countries is one thing, but without NATO support, they will not be effective in mitigating any threats posed by Iran.

[/quote]

Keep the objectives of such a war limited.

Such a war would be ride with difficulties even if the U.S. participated. Its outcome would be far from certain.

Strategic bombing alone hardly ever wins wars. This is true even in the case of a great power and minor power conflict dyad. Refer to Robert Pape’s “Bombing to Win”.

Israel could not win a ground war in Iran. It has limited power projection capabilities and would not be able to bring sufficient forces to bear in a large territory relatively far from its own.

Why do you envoke NATO? Israel is not a member of that alliance, and its members would be unwilling to participate in any military action against Iran unless something very significant were to occur.

I disagree with your closing statement. Refer to Sexmachine’s excellent assessment of Israel’s defense apparatus. A preventative strike against Iran would be foolhardy, to be sure. However, the IDF and associated organizations would smash any Iranian offensive.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Keep the objectives of such a war limited.

Such a war would be ride with difficulties even if the U.S. participated. Its outcome would be far from certain.

Strategic bombing alone hardly ever wins wars. This is true even in the case of a great power and minor power conflict dyad. Refer to Robert Pape’s “Bombing to Win”.

Israel could not win a ground war in Iran. It has limited power projection capabilities and would not be able to bring sufficient forces to bear in a large territory relatively far from its own.

Why do you envoke NATO? Israel is not a member of that alliance, and its members would be unwilling to participate in any military action against Iran unless something very significant were to occur.

I disagree with your closing statement. Refer to Sexmachine’s excellent assessment of Israel’s defense apparatus. A preventative strike against Iran would be foolhardy, to be sure. However, the IDF and associated organizations would smash any Iranian offensive. [/quote]

We are generally in agreement.

By NATO I meant the US, but if the US plays certain members of NATO will play too, outside of official NATO involvement. It was a poorly worded statement.

In my closing statement I was referring to a pre-emptive ground war initiated by Israel, not an Iranian offensive. We are in agreement that Israel does not have the logistical capability to fight wars outside of it’s borders, or even prolonged wars inside of it’s borders. Also, outside of hostilities regarding Palestine, any overt attack on Israel would result in US involvement.

[quote]theuofh wrote:

Assume we are speaking about a war with Iran and you are Israel, How would you go about winning the confrontation?

[/quote]

That would depend on a lot of things, for example what are the objectives? How much support do I have from my own party on the rest of the nation. All hypothetical. And in war the element of chance and the chaotic nature of conflict itself makes prediction very difficult. I don’t see the point in coming up with a hypothetical plan about how Israel would defeat Iranian forces. If you’re asking if they have the capability? Bismarck is correct about the difficulties. I’ve been over myself on this forum a number of times over the years. Essentially, Iran holds a unique strategic defensive position. Its industrial and urban areas clustered on a several plateaus, all surrounded by mountains and desert(see map). The regime maintains power through control of Shia tribes throughout the crescent that runs through Iraq and Syria and into Southern Lebanon. So Iran has great strategic depth with asymmetric capabilities throughout the whole region. If you’re interested in the unique strategic geographic position of Iran read the topography section in the Wikipedia article:

Invading Iran is an extremely difficult operation for anyone, even the US which could bring several carriers into the Gulf. Delta Force tried to rescue the US hostages back in the early 80’s and the operation was a total disaster due to the difficulty of flying in rotary craft hundreds of miles through sandstorms at extremely low altitude to avoid SAM defences. From what I remember two of the helicopters crashed and a number of others never made it to the first rendezvous. I think they were supposed to fly on to a second location and then on to a stadium near where the hostages were held but the whole thing was called off due to lost aircraft. I don’t think the US even has the ability to invade Iran, defeat their forces and occupy the country. I think it could be done but I think it would be very difficult to pull off. More than likely too difficult.

But that’s not really on the cards anyway. What’s likely is a surprise targeted bombing by Israeli jets of a few installations. That too is a difficult operation but I think the Israelis have the capability to do it. From what I understand, one of the key installations is underground and in a reinforced bunker such that only the largest bunker buster bombs in existence could penetrate it. And these largest bunker busters America has and Israel doesn’t. I’m not sure of Israel has requested them. It’s probably the sort of information that’s kept quiet for obvious reasons.

Yep. And Obama has done everything he can to make sure Israel doesn’t strike Iran. There’s nothing wise about that. As Churchill said of Chamberlain, “you were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war…” Obama chose to appease Iran and avoid a conflict. But he only gave them the leverage they needed to continue their nuclear program. When Iran has demonstrated break out capacity it will be under a blanket of protection from under which they will escalate their terrorist activities and the menacing of their neighbours and Western interests.

Who said anything about strategic bombing? This isn’t WWII.

A sustained ground operation is probably beyond the capabilities of the US. Certainly, the morale is not there. And it’s an extremely difficult operation as I mentioned above.

Eventually Iran’s belligerent actions will force the US to act. Iran has a history of blockading and threatening vital shipping lanes; see tanker wars and most recently the Iranian Navy’s sending warships through the Suez Canal for the first time since 1979, their attempts to annex Abu Mousa and the Tunb Islands etc. 40% of the entire global energy passes through the Gulf and these islands and the Strait of Hormuz dominate this vital shipping lane. Iran has and will continue to menace Western interests and eventually the US will be forced to act and NAVCENT and the Fifth Fleet will strike.

Sorry for all the typos in my previous post. I’m typing on my phone. Attached is the map I mentioned. See the mountains and desert surrounding the main basin and the strategic position of the Strait of Hormuz.

You referred to Operation Eagle Claw also referred to as Desert One. During the debate regarding the Bin Laden raid several parties, among them Robert Gates, expressed concern that the mission could end up the same way.

Oil markets are very unpredictable right now and I’ve yet to find a valid assessment on the underlying causes. Certain parties would probably welcome a cut in Arab supply through the Strait, namely Russia and certain US shale oil stakeholders.

I’d also like to point out that every Democratic president since Carter has attempted to work out a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, starting with Carter’s Camp David Accords and then Clinton’s attempt. It is also looking more and more that this issue was more of an article hastily published by the media, without vetting it’s credibility and likelihood.

[quote]theuofh wrote:

I’d also like to point out that every Democratic president since Carter has attempted to work out a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict…

[/quote]

Not just every Democratic President. Reagan, H W and Dubya all played the game too. Surely you realise it’s a charade as the Palestinians have shown themselves to be committed to a maximalist position: a one state solution. The PA merely goes through the motions of feigning interest in a two state solution as a means of gaining concessions, to maintain international support for their cause and see it(a two state solution), as a stepping stone if you will; a springboard from which to continue to attack and existentially threaten Israel. Any serious observer who is not blinded by ideology or fooled by lies must realise that the collective consciousness of the Palestinians is such that they cannot accept a two state solution. This is why they repeatedly reject magnanimous offers.

[quote]

…starting with Carter’s Camp David Accords and then Clinton’s attempt. It is also looking more and more that this issue was more of an article hastily published by the media, without vetting it’s credibility and likelihood. [/quote]

The PA doesn’t adhere to any if the agreements made in the accords. The Palestinians have shown themselves to be the most perfidious and untrustworthy peoples on the planet. They are utterly consumed with genocidal malevolence. That’s why you see things like entire streets full of people celebrating a suicide bombing or the 911 attacks. It’s not just their leaders who are the problem. The people themselves are not interested in peace. They’re not interested in self determination and a sovereign nation state. They’re not nationalists at all because they never constituted a distinct people. They’re pan-nationalists, and they’re entirely fixated on a war of annihilation against the Jews and the state of Israel.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_NETANYAHU?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-01-22-12-11-08

Palestinian goes on a stabbing spree maiming a dozen people:

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/27899502/palestinian-wounds-11-in-tel-aviv-bus-stabbing

They should have shot him.

I recall in the mid-80’s looking at a map of the world and seeing how many countries were Communist and how many Communist rebels there were all over the world. You could do the same thing today and see how many countries have Muslim rebels or terrorists in them. And how much of this happened under Obama’s watch? Unbelievable.

I think anyone with any military education could come up with a concept of how to combat the threat across the globe. It didn’t take long for the Saudi’s to bankroll this extremist global uprising so I don’t know how it’s so difficult to fight it. During the Cold War we had alliances with nations opposed to Communism. It’s time to re-adjust these alliances to combat radical Islam, but no one’s taking the helm. It’s pathetic.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
They should have shot him.

I recall in the mid-80’s looking at a map of the world and seeing how many countries were Communist and how many Communist rebels there were all over the world. You could do the same thing today and see how many countries have Muslim rebels or terrorists in them. And how much of this happened under Obama’s watch? Unbelievable.

I think anyone with any military education could come up with a concept of how to combat the threat across the globe. It didn’t take long for the Saudi’s to bankroll this extremist global uprising so I don’t know how it’s so difficult to fight it. During the Cold War we had alliances with nations opposed to Communism. It’s time to re-adjust these alliances to combat radical Islam, but no one’s taking the helm. It’s pathetic.[/quote]

I’m not going to defend Obama too much, but radical/political Islam has been boiling over for a long time, probably starting in it’s modern form with Qutb. More terrorists have been killed during Obama’s presidency than anyone else’s.

Communism and radical Islamism are also not discrete events, and both sides of the Cold War played chess with the Middle East. The US armed the Mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan, which was a great victory, but after giving them over a billion dollars in weapons we walked away after the Berlin wall fell. The Taliban came out of that and it’s where Bin Laden got his bona fides as Jihadi. It was a great victory for the US over enemy number #1, but also a great victory for radical Islam. That ended in 1990, about the time of Bush #1, and it started with ZBig and Carter.

People don’t realize how unstable most of those government’s are, and radical Islam is also being used as a mechanism of social control to keep even US friendly regimes in power. If they show any moderate or secular leanings, a lot of their people will revolt in an instant. Any dissent against the ruling regime’s is generally crushed, using torture, assassination, sham trials, and the whatnot.

If things were left alone, you’d eventually have a battle royale between some pyscho Sunni’s (ISIS goal) and pyscho Shiites (Iran), maybe after they teamed up on Israel. Given the energy reserves in the region, nobody (US, Russia, or China) is that anxious to let that happen.

People with military education’s have been working on this problem and will continue to be working on the problem. There is no easy or good solution. It’s literally fucked if you do, fucked if you don’t, and you don’t get to know which outcome will be worse when you have the make the decision.

The sad part is the general population is mostly unwilling to take some time and figure out why this region is this way. Instead they listen to Fox and other politically motivated “news” sources whose main function is to not educate, but to propagandize, find a scapegoat and gloat in an imagined superiority to those who are actually in the fight.

Use up all the oil in the region, leave, and let them kill each other.

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
They should have shot him.

I recall in the mid-80’s looking at a map of the world and seeing how many countries were Communist and how many Communist rebels there were all over the world. You could do the same thing today and see how many countries have Muslim rebels or terrorists in them. And how much of this happened under Obama’s watch? Unbelievable.

I think anyone with any military education could come up with a concept of how to combat the threat across the globe. It didn’t take long for the Saudi’s to bankroll this extremist global uprising so I don’t know how it’s so difficult to fight it. During the Cold War we had alliances with nations opposed to Communism. It’s time to re-adjust these alliances to combat radical Islam, but no one’s taking the helm. It’s pathetic.[/quote]

I’m not going to defend Obama too much, but radical/political Islam has been boiling over for a long time, probably starting in it’s modern form with Qutb. More terrorists have been killed during Obama’s presidency than anyone else’s.

Communism and radical Islamism are also not discrete events, and both sides of the Cold War played chess with the Middle East. The US armed the Mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan, which was a great victory, but after giving them over a billion dollars in weapons we walked away after the Berlin wall fell. The Taliban came out of that and it’s where Bin Laden got his bona fides as Jihadi. It was a great victory for the US over enemy number #1, but also a great victory for radical Islam. That ended in 1990, about the time of Bush #1, and it started with ZBig and Carter.

People don’t realize how unstable most of those government’s are, and radical Islam is also being used as a mechanism of social control to keep even US friendly regimes in power. If they show any moderate or secular leanings, a lot of their people will revolt in an instant. Any dissent against the ruling regime’s is generally crushed, using torture, assassination, sham trials, and the whatnot.

If things were left alone, you’d eventually have a battle royale between some pyscho Sunni’s (ISIS goal) and pyscho Shiites (Iran), maybe after they teamed up on Israel. Given the energy reserves in the region, nobody (US, Russia, or China) is that anxious to let that happen.

People with military education’s have been working on this problem and will continue to be working on the problem. There is no easy or good solution. It’s literally fucked if you do, fucked if you don’t, and you don’t get to know which outcome will be worse when you have the make the decision.

The sad part is the general population is mostly unwilling to take some time and figure out why this region is this way. Instead they listen to Fox and other politically motivated “news” sources whose main function is to not educate, but to propagandize, find a scapegoat and gloat in an imagined superiority to those who are actually in the fight. [/quote]

I understand all of this because I lived through it. Obviously extremist Islamic terrorism is a hugely complex problem. And sure it was around for a long time. But any student of history could have told you two important things the Obama administration totally screwed up on:

  1. The people in these countries are Islamic, hence, given democracy, they would naturally elect people who are Islamic as their leaders if not the most radical of the bunch.

  2. Any Muslim country governed by a dictator was eventually replaced by an extreme theocratic government. See Iran for instance.

Maybe Obama killed more terrorists than any other president, but in the long run, is the world better than it was in regard to Islamic terrorists 8 years ago?

Perhaps bombing them with drones is not the correct tactic to use.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

Maybe Obama killed more terrorists than any other president, but in the long run, is the world better than it was in regard to Islamic terrorists 8 years ago?

Perhaps bombing them with drones is not the correct tactic to use.[/quote]

I think the world is in a much better position in regards to Islamic terrorists today than 8 years ago. Drones are remarkably effective at killing terrorists.

Iran is a different beast altogether though, and my main concern is starting a hot war with Iran while you are already involved in wars in at least 3 neighboring countries.

I’m not a historian, but I’m not sure how 5+ team melee wars work out, especially when the teams aren’t clear. I think this is what this will likely turn into.