Iran trading in Euros/Yen and US's response

[Drifterwood]

I like Zakaria's idea of there being no one superpower, but a group of nations coming to the fore and having a somewhat equitable voice in international affairs. But that may be unrealistic.

Well, the UN was supposed to be that, but then certain countries just ignore their resolutions or lack of resolutions when it suits them.

My boyfriend and I were discussing the likelihood the United States would enter another civil war or have some other societal breakdown in the next 20-30 years, and I think it likely the U.S. will have too many internal issues to maintain any form of superpower status in that period. Someone will have to take over and Europe seems as good a bet as China.

I think that in a global economy in which size really does matter, then the pre-eminence of the US will diminish. You won't just get your own way, with or without bombs. How fast this happens and what the consequences at home will be for you, isn't really my place to speculate. But I can see some serious trouble over resources.

Is the US able to be self sufficient in food and energy for example?

There was a great debate about this last year, I think on Frost Over the World, but I can't find a link.

I have no interest in seeing a weak USA, I have no doubt that China will continue to rise and may well get back to that point in the Middle Ages when it accounted for one third of the world's economy, and of course I would like to see a secure and safe and properous Europe. Even though it sounds rather naive, I don't buy into the system whereby my having something has to be at the expense of someone else not having something.

 

[Flashy]

Interesting. Enlighten me as to what these veterans of the IR-IQ war would say?
.

you do not think that these 13 & 14 year olds who went to the front were frightened?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5_hUqILWoA&

--

you do not think that the the untrained boys that Iran sent in human wave attacks against artilley barrages and minefields, where they carried only plastic keys (which they were told guaranteed them entry to heaven) and died by the tens of thousands, were scared?

Obviously, the "hardened" adult troops were scared if they had to send 100,000 boys to their deaths to protect themselves in the first waves.


and just FYI, the only even remotely dependable fighting force in Iran is the IRGC...the rest of the military is poorly trained, poorly equipped, conscripted amateurs.

even the IRGC uses equipment that are primarily obsolete, cold war relics...their armored and mechanized divisions operate a total of only 1800 tanks, the vast majority of which are 1960s era soviet T55s, and 1950s & 1960s era US and British exports from the time of the Shah, for which there are limited spare parts.

their most "modern" tanks, are the crummy, export version of the Soviet T-72, last seen burning by the thousands in the deserts of Iraq in 1991 and 2003....they are licensed to produce these cold war relics in Iran and have only 500 of them.

and their 1300 armored fighting vehicles and APCs, are, once again, primarily 1950s and 1960s era soviet and american stock...obsolete, under-armored and in poor repair.

their air force is in even worse shape...they only have 270+ fighter/attack craft...the majority of which are old US F4s, F5s, F14s many of which have been cannibalized for spare parts and only half of which are even mission capable....and the others are 1970s and 1980s era soviet stock.

in order to even keep them mission capable, they cannot be flown often, thus restricting training of the pilots.

considering that the Revolutionary Councils killed all the top pilots and commanders in the air force after the revolution, who were all US trained, and sympathetic to the Shah, they destroyed what was arguably the second best air force in the middle east at the time.


In short, the Iranian armed forces are a joke on a conventional scale. They are poorly trained, poorly equipped and the majority of which are amateur and unprofessional...even the top elements are flying with far less training, and more obsolete equipment then who they would be facing.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

You said:

and are you suggesting that the Iranian Military have "no fear of death"? I would suggest you speak to many of the Iranian troops who fought during the Iran-Iraq War.

you do not think that these 13 & 14 year olds who went to the front were frightened?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5_hUqILWoA&

*Snip*

Certainly, I expect the child soldiers to have been scared, that's expected. But, I haven't offered anything about what I think - I asked you to enlighten me as to what a veteran would say about the war, meaning how they felt during the conflict and how they feel now some 20+ years after it ended.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

I have no interest in seeing a weak USA, I have no doubt that China will continue to rise and may well get back to that point in the Middle Ages when it accounted for one third of the world's economy, and of course I would like to see a secure and safe and properous Europe. Even though it sounds rather naive, I don't buy into the system whereby my having something has to be at the expense of someone else not having something.

I can't quote your entire message, but the U.S. definitely needs fossil fuels and petrochemicals to function, that's our Achilles heel.

Regarding the rise of China and the EU (including Brazil and India, if I am following Zakaria's projections), I see it as more of a benefit to United States to fix internal problems by removing some pressure of being *the* superpower.

My core belief is that there's room for a variety of perspectives/influence on international affairs - the current system just needs a bit of restructuring for that to happen.

 

[Drifterwood]

I would agree with that. Consensus is generally more palatable than dictatorship.

 

[Flashy]

You said:



Certainly, I expect the child soldiers to have been scared, that's expected. But, I haven't offered anything about what I think - I asked you to enlighten me as to what a veteran would say about the war, meaning how they felt during the conflict and how they feel now some 20+ years after it ended.

then you should go watch one of the many documentaries about the thousands of Iranian veterans of that war, lying in hospitals, who were gassed....and the 100s of thousands of others who were severely wounded

untrained, unprofessional troops, with inferior equipment, being sent to their deaths by the hundreds of thousands, so afraid that they had to send terrified children ahead of them, whose only "training" to hold onto was religious in nature.

the current regime itself is scared of its own people.

the fact is, that most of the "soldiers" from that war were untrained amateurs comprised of 100s of thousands of the Basij forces, no better than militias, with little training...whose ages ranged from as low as 9 to over 50 years old...who were ordered to walk through minefields to clear them for the Iranian tanks. and the Pasdaran (IRGC) at the time, and the regular Iranian army were rank combat amateurs. they were an army carried by zeal, and their superiors' callous disregard for loss of life in service of the revolution...the situation was so desperate that Khomeni had to release from jail all the air force pilots and army commanders and officers, who used to run the Shah's army,

their tactics were equivalent to WW1 trench warfare, and if you do not think that millions of people with no training, including kids as low as 9 years of age, being forced in to human wave assaults vs minefields, tanks and machine guns are not afraid, well, i do not know what to tell you.

There are plenty of documentaries and books where you can read about the Iranian Veterans and the Iran-Iraq War which will give you far more detailed information than what i have been able to glean from watching and reading brief snippets about them over the years.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

then you should go watch one of the many documentaries about the thousands of Iranian veterans of that war, lying in hospitals, who were gassed....and the 100s of thousands of others who were severely wounded *Snip*

their tactics were equivalent to WW1 trench warfare, and if you do not think that millions of people with no training, including kids as low as 9 years of age, being forced in to human wave assaults vs minefields, tanks and machine guns are not afraid, well, i do not know what to tell you.

There are plenty of documentaries and books where you can read about the Iranian Veterans and the Iran-Iraq War which will give you far more detailed information than what i have been able to glean from watching and reading brief snippets about them over the years.

Again, I did not state what I think and can state that I do not know, as there is no one common view about the IR-IQ war. I asked about the insight you have into the mindset of veterans of the war because you made it seem like they would support your position.

I have been exposed to a bit of information, including texts and documentaries, which offer the accounts of veterans and their families dating from the outset of the war through, I think, sometime before the U.S. invasion of Iraq as one person makes mention of Saddam Hussein and America's role in the war. While fear was undoubtedly an influence, as, I imagine, few would enter into fighting a war without fear. There were other, equally important elements one could also point to that drove the people to fight and die in defense of their homeland. Perhaps these same principles would be called into play should the U.S. decide to invade Iran, whether the country is militarily a match or not.

Choc cock mentioned "no fear of death", which those that fall into "culture of death" camp might support. But does not, imo, adequately describe the viewpoint of Iranians and I think your description is equally lacking and could do with acknowledging the variety of views on the war. Particularly if you think the U.S. acting with force, OK, continuing to act with force, against Iran is an assured U.S. victory.

 

[Flashy]

Again, I did not state what I think and can state that I do not know, as there is no one common view about the IR-IQ war. I asked about the insight you have into the mindset of veterans of the war because you made it seem like they would support your position.

I have been exposed to a bit of information, including texts and documentaries, which offer the accounts of veterans and their families dating from the outset of the war through, I think, sometime before the U.S. invasion of Iraq as one person makes mention of Saddam Hussein and America's role in the war. While fear was undoubtedly an influence, as, I imagine, few would enter into fighting a war without fear. There were other, equally important elements one could also point to that drove the people to fight and die in defense of their homeland. Perhaps these same principles would be called into play should the U.S. decide to invade Iran, whether the country is militarily a match or not.

Choc cock mentioned "no fear of death", which those that fall into "culture of death" camp might support. But does not, imo, adequately describe the viewpoint of Iranians and I think your description is equally lacking and could do with acknowledging the variety of views on the war. Particularly if you think the U.S. acting with force, OK, continuing to act with force, against Iran is an assured U.S. victory.

the fact is, that the previous poster said their military had "no fear of death"...which is nonsense.

and the fact is, militarily, against Iran, a US victory would, in fact, be assured.

and once again, what you and others do not seem to grasp, is that USA does not need to *INVADE* Iran, to defeat it militarily.

indeed, as you said:
"There were other, equally important elements one could also point to that drove the people to fight and die in defense of their homeland."

however, what are those people going to do when there is nobody actually in Iran for them to fight?

they are not going to fight against airplanes, because they cannot personally fly. they are not going to fight against ships 50 miles out in the gulf, and they are not going to fight by trying human wave attacks against a modern US Brigade Combat Team that will in all likelihood not enter Iranian territory.

so the zeal that was employed during the Iran-Iraq War, while it might be useful in terms of whipping up sentiment would be completely useless in a military context.

Indeed, America had a very large role in supporting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war...but, whether you are familiar or not, virtually *EVERY* western country was supporting the Iraqis in many military ways...even the Soviets. Not to mention virtually all the Arab gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, contributed billions in financial support to the Iraqis. the Soviets, Chinese, France, Britain, Italy, Germany, and many others all sold weapons directly to Iraq for the conflict.

and, in fact the US did help Iran too, if you recall the Iran-Contra Affair, in which weapons were sold in 1984-1986. the US sold over 2500 TOW anti-tank missiles to Iran, in addition to Hawk anti-aircraft missiles and critical spare parts to the Iranian Hawk Batteries which had originally been sold to the Shah.

the Soviets also played both sides, supporting Iraq and Iran, that way they could improve relations with Iran, a country with whom they had virtually non-existent and rather antagonistic ties with. They supported Iraq massively, but left open possible relations and help to IRan...and, you can see the fruit of that relationship borne out very much today, no? Russia, has, since the fall of the Soviet Union, gone to great lengths to improve ties with Iran, selling them weapons, and they have a very important relationship with regards to petroleum...in act, look at how the Russians have been protecting Iran throughout the Nuclear crisis.

and Portugal and Spain helped both sides as well.

In fact, the only reason that the Iraqis did not completely decimate Iran, was because of the utterly pathetic performance of their military despite overwhelming support from the west, not to mention massive advantages in firepower, equipment and technology. (this lack of proficiency could be easily seen in Gulf War 1, Live on CNN)

 

[Drifterwood]

and the fact is, militarily, against Iran, a US victory would, in fact, be assured.)

That would depend upon your definition of victory. Yes, I note your intelligent insertion of military, but surely you have learnt the gulf between military victory and victor.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

That would depend upon your definition of victory. Yes, I note your intelligent insertion of military, but surely you have learnt the gulf between military victory and victor.

Precisely.

There's a lot of history there, even if the U.S. acts with force against Iran and achieves their short-term goal, in the long-term, there will be no "victory" through force. If anything, the threat of force, much less the actuality of it, achieves the opposite of U.S. goals. By now, one would think we would have learnt <--shout out to DW :09 that lesson. Guess not.

 

[Flashy]

That would depend upon your definition of victory. Yes, I note your intelligent insertion of military, but surely you have learnt the gulf between military victory and victor.

indeed, but we are not shooting for regime change, and the goals are different then the poorly conceived regime change and occupation of Iraq...

we have no need to occupy Iran, as a result, the goals are strictly military.

with Iraq, the goal was going in to change regimes under the auspices of "WMD's"...we were not prepared for the occupation to come.

with Iran, the only goal is knocking out their nuclear program, the secondary goal, of increasing the conflict to full scale military operations vs Iran would only be necessary if Iran were to react militarily to a strike in the nuclear program.

if Iran reacted by declaring a war of any type, that would set in motion the destruction of their military, because any declaration of war or military response would likely use an attempt to confront US ships in the Gulf, and US troops in Iraq...an attack on US troops would bring immediate full scale response.

so there is a precise sequence, which is different...that being:

1. Initial US Strike on nuclear program.
2. Iranian response...

A. if the response is to just sit on their hands and stew and perhaps try and stoke attacks in Iraq from their agents, there likely will be no further action against Iranian military targets within Iran proper.

or

B. The Iranians attempt missile launches at US troops in Iraq, or missile launches towards Israel or other Gulf States...this would provoke a full US Military response against all Iranian military and intelligence targets, mostly aimed at the IRGC elements of the Army Navy and Air Force.

3. If Iran escalates after the initial strike, that provides the pretext to destroy the entire Iranian military, which, with so many US Military assets in the region, based in several countries around Iran (roughly 8 countries) can be done rather easily, much like the first night of the IRaq war, in terms of the initial strikes on regime targets.

 

[Flashy]

Precisely.

There's a lot of history there, even if the U.S. acts with force against Iran and achieves their short-term goal, in the long-term, there will be no "victory" through force. If anything, the threat of force, much less the actuality of it, achieves the opposite of U.S. goals. By now, one would think we would have learnt <--shout out to DW :09 that lesson. Guess not.

no, that is not actually the case...because at the moment, Iran is the most dangerous destabilizing force in the Middle East...and if we do not take care of them, the Gulf Arab States will be spurred in to a new arms race, most likely for nukes...and when this happens, the region will be further destabilized...

and just FYI, Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world...they are at present providing arms, training, coordination and a host of other things to people who are killing US troops in Iraq.

the only "goals" necessary with regards to Iran, is destroying their nuclear program, and destroying their military, and most especially, utterly destroying the IRGC and the Intelligence arms, which, are the prime culprits that control and oppress the populace at large.

whatever short term anger by the citizenry that might exist from the strike, would, in time be replaced by the knowledge that Iran has the basics of democracy in place, and without the oppression and force of the current regime, a takeover by reformers would be much easier in the long run.

I could handle being disliked by the Iranians, if it meant eliminating completely the IRGC and Intelligence arms, plus the Nuclear Program. The pro-reform people there would get over the initial anger, once they eventually took control of their country...because, let's face it...there is no rapproachment possible between the US and Iran whatsoever, as long as the current revolutionary regime remains in power in Iran.

the difference is, we do not have to be in charge of regime change. We need only decapitate the poisonous head of the snake.

In the long term, you do not know that there will be no "victory through force"...look at Japan and Germany.

wars are won through force, plain and simple, and in this case, we do not have to occupy the country.

the only victory we need, is the utter destruction of the Iranian Nuclear program and the IRGC and intelligence services.

Personally, i would settle it all in one moment...and attack every military and intelligence target at the same time as the strikes on the Nuclear program.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

1. Initial US Strike on nuclear program.

And then what happens?

2. Iranian response...

A. if the response is to just sit on their hands and stew and perhaps try and stoke attacks in Iraq from their agents, there likely will be no further action against Iranian military targets within Iran proper.

How would this impact Iran internally?

B. The Iranians attempt missile launches at US troops in Iraq, or missile launches towards Israel or other Gulf States...this would provoke a full US Military response against all Iranian military and intelligence targets, mostly aimed at the IRGC elements of the Army Navy and Air Force.

3. If Iran escalates after the initial strike, that provides the pretext to destroy the entire Iranian military, which, with so many US Military assets in the region, based in several countries around Iran (roughly 8 countries) can be done rather easily, much like the first night of the IRaq war, in terms of the initial strikes on regime targets.

And then what happens?

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

no, that is not actually the case...because at the moment, Iran is the most dangerous destabilizing force in the Middle East....

The United States is the most destabilizing force in the Middle East.

whatever short term anger by the citizenry that might exist from the strike, would, in time be replaced by the knowledge that Iran has the basics of democracy in place, and without the oppression and force of the current regime, a takeover by reformers would be much easier in the long run.

This one sounds familiar.

Personally, i would settle it all in one moment...and attack every military and intelligence target at the same time as the strikes on the Nuclear program.

Why not join the military and spearhead a campaign to do just that?

 

[Flashy]

The United States is the most destabilizing force in the Middle East.

oh, is that so? Sorry, untrue...why are all the sunni states so desperate to make sure that the US will protect them from the growing Iranian threat?

You are aware that Sunnis and Shiites don't exactly get along, and Iran is the pinnacle of growing Shiite power in the region?

 

[Flashy]

This one sounds familiar.


Why not join the military and spearhead a campaign to do just that?

well, it isn't familiar...because unlike Iraq, there actually is a foundation of democracy in Iran.

because the military, in case you did not know, is controlled by civilians in this country....and frankly, there already plenty of studies and strategic planning for this campaign without me offering my help.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

oh, is that so? Sorry, untrue...

Very much true and has been for decades.

why are all the sunni states so desperate to make sure that the US will protect them from the growing Iranian threat?

You are aware that Sunnis and Shiites don't exactly get along, and Iran is the pinnacle of growing Shiite power in the region?

Which "unni states"?

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

well, it isn't familiar...because unlike Iraq, there actually is a foundation of democracy in Iran.

because the military, in case you did not know, is controlled by civilians in this country....and frankly, there already plenty of studies and strategic planning for this campaign without me offering my help.

It's familiar without looking beyond Iran. :biggrin1:

because the military, in case you did not know, is controlled by civilians in this country....and frankly, there already plenty of studies and strategic planning for this campaign without me offering my help.

Regardless, you seem to be a proponent of military action, why not get involved?

 

[SilverTrain]

Oh, look! Yet another "argument" that Flashy will never give up. God help us all.

 

[Flashy]

And then what happens?

DUH...read the next points

How would this impact Iran internally?

who cares. this is not an internal issue. our job is not to interfere in their internal politics any more then is already done on a covert level that has been going on for years to dissident groups and intelligence gathering.

one thing is for certain, an Iran who is no longer a regional threat, who has lost the entire IRGC and their military complex, plus their nuke program, will stand a much better chance of insuring economic prosperity in the future, as opposed to facing crippling sanctions for years.

In case you had not noticed, the Iranian economy is a major sticking point, and Iran needs to be able to exploit their massive oil wealth to remerge in prosperity.

an Iran crippled by sanctions cannot do that. An Iran, with the IRGC and Intelligence arms and nuke program utterly destroyed, is no longer a military threat...as such, the power of people like Ahminedjedad and his ilk will be severely impacted. After that, it is up to the Iranian people, but they will inherit a country that will no longer face possibly crippling ssanctions, and would no longer be subjected to the force of the IRGC.

And then what happens?

it is rather simple...as i said. we destroy the entire Iranian Military, systematically, from the top down. Start with the Nuclear Program, Intelligence Branches and IRGC, then hit the military infrastructure and fabrication plants, destroy their long range missile capability and all elements of it and any other targets of strategic military value.

After that, we see what they choose to do. Since they will have no military options left, there really is not much they can do.

Then, we wait. We see if the regime collapses, or if it is able to survive. But, in the meantime, we have destroyed the greatest single threat in the region....what happens then, does not matter from a military standpoint, since they will have no capabilities left....from then on, it is an Iranian internal issue. We offer all our support to the reformers, we support the dissidents as we have always done, we offer a reconciliation with the US after 30 years and a brand new start if Iranian reformers come to power, economic assistance, the rescinding of all sanctions.

aside from that, there is not much else we can do. Iran's drive for the nuke program has pushed us to the point where now there is no other option. We cannot have another North Korea.

Simple as.

i am sorry if you do not like that, but it is Realpolitik, and dead honest.