Iran : War or Regime Change ? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of the Middle East.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#14935952
Alright so @anasawad said pretty much everything I wanted to say in this in thread in regards to Iran so I'll discuss whether or not the US can actually win a war with Iran.

I completely disagree with everything posters here seem to be saying about how the US can take Iran over any time it wants. This is ridiculous and shows a lack of understanding as to how the US military actually works. It also shows a lack of understanding as to how war works as well. Here are the biggest problems the US military has and the advantages Iran has due to them:

1. The US military is too centralized to properly conduct a war against a foreign nation so far from their circle of influence. The US military has an overwhelming bureaucracy (due to Pentagon) which prevents it's soldiers and officers from having the autonomy to make their own decisions and act in accordance to the situation. This bureaucracy permeates throughout the entirety of the military. This means that the US is sluggish when making a military action and is reliant on it's proxies' more reactive militaries (for example, Israel) to give it an advantage. Meanwhile the Iranian military is much more decentralized (and defense oriented, but I will touch on that later) leading to soldiers and officers having more autonomy to make their own decisions. This makes the Iranian military more flexible when dealing with new combat situations or changes in the battle field.

2. The US has horrible long term communications. This, combined with the above, makes the US military atrocious in foreign lands. The US military has a backwards communication system as if it's still in the Cold War. While Iran's military communications is also outdated, it has the advantage of it's communications being on domestic soil which means that communication is much more easier and accessible. The US doesn't have that advantage since it's on foreign soil and thus it's communications are drawn out and error prone. It also makes their communications more interceptable by the Iranian military. Combined with an overwhelming bureaucracy, this makes Iran a living hell for the US.

3. Iran is defending while the US is attacking. Clausewitz has stated that a nation which is in defense is always stronger than a nation on the offensive because it is always easier to hold ground than to take it. This is because defense isn't passive and is composed of two parts: the first, waiting for the attack, and the second, parrying it, the counterattack. Or, as Clausewitz has put it, "So the defensive form of war is not a simple shield, but a shield made up of well-directed blows." (357). A country on the defensive also has the added advantage of it's goal being self-preservation which generates the highest amount of morale a country could possibly generate. And Iran's entire military doctrine revolves around defense. A person fighting for self-preservation is always going to put up a better fight than someone whose goal is to further the geopolitical interests of their nation especially if it's geopolitical interests are utterly unfathomable to the average soldier.

The US military also has the disadvantage of not really having a reason to occupy Iran. The average soldier doesn't give a fuck about Iran and Iran in general isn't that big of a threat to the US. Iran isn't like Russia, Germany, or even ISIS. It isn't a rival to the US nor an evil force which needs to be removed. Furthermore, more experienced soldiers in the US military will be skeptical or cynical about the US's goal of "freeing the Iranian people" given the US's prior attempts at doing such a thing and this skepticism will be transferred over to their subordinates. There simply won't be enough of a motivation from the US soldiers to give a fuck about Iran or to generate morale.

4. The US underestimates Iran. The US military sees itself as the more powerful and best military in the world so it thinks that Iran cannot possible stand up to them and that taking Iran will be a piece of cake. This is a very bad attitude to have because underestimating your opponent in war is the worst thing you could possibly do because it will lead to not seeing your opponent based on his merits or capabilities but your perception of their merits or capabilities. This means that the US will not see the Iranian military for what it is but see it based on their perception of what it is. Meanwhile, the Iranian military will not do this since it needs to carefully analyze the US since the US is a threat to Iran and thus, has no luxury to be cocky or chauvinistic. In fact, Arabs and Persians have a huge advantage in warfare because of how underestimated they are in combat which means that they are capable of subverting the enemies expectations because of that underestimation. This gives Iran a huge advantage in a war with the US.

5. The US has a horrible military education. While Iran's isn't that much better, Iranian soldiers at least are more in touch with combat than US soldiers given the constant conflicts in the region so Iran's military at least has some hands on experience with war. The US military cannot do this and so it's military education is so disconnected from actual warfare, that US soldiers will be in shock when they actual get on the battlefield. US military education focuses primarily on theory rather than how actual warfare is like. Of course, to give the US some credit, it's hard to properly convey what war is like without there being a war or putting troops in danger but that doesn't change the fact that soldiers will be unprepared when getting into a war with Iran.

6. The US is concerned with making sure that it has the least amount of causalities in a war. You might say to yourself "Wait, but Oxy, isn't this a good thing? It means that the US has more troops to spare!". Well, while you are right, it is important to understand that by focusing so much on minimizing causalities, you limit the possible tactics that you can preform. Tactics are the building blocks of strategy so by minimizing the possible tactics you have at your disposal, you limit the possible strategies you can construct. This means that Iran, which doesn't have such a priority, is capable of constructing a wide variety of strategies against the US or possibly even forcing the US into a corner and making it lose many causalities to make sure that there is political instability in the US proper. This gives Iran a huge advantage.
#14936204
RT wrote:US President Donald Trump has said that he is willing to meet with his Iranian counterpart, Hassan Rouhani with no preconditions. “Anytime they want,” he told reporters, “if they want to meet, I’ll meet.”

I wonder if they'll discuss war or regime change. :lol:

Haaretz wrote:WASHINGTON – U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday that he would agree to meet with Iran's leaders "anytime" and "with no preconditions."

The statement came just days after Trump expressed a harsh and threatening tone toward Iran on his Twitter account. However, in a meeting with Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte at the White House on Monday, Trump said he would agree to meet with the Islamic Republic's leaders – assuming they were ready for such a meeting to take place.

"I'll meet with anybody," Trump said. "I believe in meetings. I would meet with Iran if they wanted to meet." Trump added, however, that "I don't know if they're ready." He made it clear that he would not present any preconditions for such a meeting to take place. "No preconditions," he stated, "they want to meet? I'll meet."

They must be freaked out in Israel. :lol:

And it must be a huge Trump success that he brought Rouhani to the table! :excited:
#14936213
Oxymandias wrote:@Beren

If Iran changes it's regime, it's going to be because the Iranian people want to NOT because some higher ups in Washington want to.


Thats correct.

well see for how long the mullah regime will can keep itself in power because I dont think most Iranians like the way things are going on right now
200% inflation a major drought + sanctions

#14936215
Oxymandias wrote:@Beren

If Iran changes it's regime, it's going to be because the Iranian people want to NOT because some higher ups in Washington want to.

Don't worry, higher ups in Washington only want a meeting because they believe in meetings. They'd deserve a Nobel Meeting Prize. :lol:
#14936222
@Zionist Nationalist

Those crises aren't enough to topple a regime. If this was the case, the US would've died off a long time ago. It should've died off now given how Puerto Rico is literally destroyed and thousands of product shortages are occurring because of the destruction of many Puerto Rican businesses and resources which create those products. Hell, if this was the case, the Israeli government should've been overthrown by this point. Yet that hasn't happened now has it?

A minor crisis like this is not enough to topple a regime. The government will fall, but it will not fall now nor will it fall because of such a crisis.
#14936263
As rial crumbles, Iran rebuffs ‘speculation’ it may hold talks with US
Unconfirmed reports of a possible shift in stance on holding negotiations with US come as currency hits record low Monday with fresh sanctions near

Iran’s foreign ministry on Monday rejected reports it may be open to fresh negotiations with the United States, as the country’s currency hit a record low ahead of the re-imposition of US sanctions.

“The US or parts of the US may express wishes (about talks), but after the (US) illegal withdrawal from the JCPOA and their hostile policies and push for economic pressure on the Iranian nation, I think there is no such issue” in the works, the Tasnim News Agency reported spokesman Bahram Qassemi as saying.

The foreign ministry’s rebuke of “media speculation” came two days days after the influential parliament speaker, Ali Larijani, was quoted suggesting Iran could be open to talks with the US, if such a move has widespread backing from the country’s leaders.

Qassemi also dismissed any tie between a recent trip by the Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to Oman and the Omani foreign minister’s visit to Washington last week.

Oman hosted Iranian and Obama administration officials during the negotiations leading to the 2015 nuclear deal meant to limit Iran’s nuclear program.

The visit has been seen by some as a sign that Oman is acting as a mediator between the US and Iran. Muscat hosted secret preliminary talks between the Obama administration and Iran’s leadership in 2011.

Larijani was quoted in unsourced reports on Saturday purportedly saying that if the entire Iranian establishment was in agreement, Iran could negotiate with the US. This unsourced quotation was repeated prominently on Israel’s Hadashot TV news on Monday evening.

The unconfirmed reports of a possible shift in Iran’s stance on negotiations with the US have come as the free fall of its economy continued Monday, with the rial dropping to 122,000 to the dollar on the thriving black market exchange, from the previous low set the day before of 116,000 to the dollar.

In a statement dated Sunday, the central bank alleged the rial’s drop was the result of foreign conspiracies and said the currency’s weakness against the dollar was not a reflection of “economic realities.”

“Recent developments in the gold and forex markets are part of the conspiracies hatched by the country’s enemies in order to agitate the economy and rob the people of their psychological security,” the statement said, according to Radio Farda.

The central bank stressed it was “closely watching the developments.”

The sharp decline in the rial’s value comes ahead of the re-imposition of US sanctions on August 6, the first of two rounds of US sanctions that will take effect as part of US President Donald Trump’s May decision to quit the 2015 nuclear deal meant to limit Iran’s nuclear program.

The rial has lost half its value against the dollar in just four months, having broken through the 50,000-mark for the first time in March.

The government attempted to fix the rate at 42,000 in April, and threatened to crackdown on black market traders.

But the trade continued with Iranians worried about a prolonged economic downturn turning to dollars as a safe way to store their savings, or as an investment in the hope the rial will continue to drop.

With banks often refusing to sell their dollars at the artificially low rate, the government was forced to soften its line in June, allowing more flexibility for certain groups of importers.

The handling of the crisis was one of the reasons behind last week’s decision by President Hassan Rouhani to replace central bank chief, Valiollah Seif.

The currency collapse was encouraged by the US announcement in May that it was pulling out of the 2015 nuclear deal, which had lifted certain sanctions in exchange for curbs to Iran’s atomic program.

The US is set to reimpose its full range of sanctions in two stages on August 6 and November 4, forcing many foreign firms to cut off business with Iran.

Already last month, protesters clashed with police outside parliament in Tehran amid three days of demonstrations sparked by the currency’s plunge, and worries are growing about what might happen once the new sanctions take effect next week.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/as-rial-c ... s-with-us/

Aside from politics, the Iranian economy is in a shambles.
This cannot continue for much longer.
#14936265
Some 60 percent of the Iranian economy is centrally planned according to Wikipedia, which should be reduced perhaps, and maybe it's also not good for the economy if a country is run by ayatollahs, but I wouldn't believe all this necessarily implies regime change in the short term. However, it may be possible that they'd accept a compromise with the Americans hammered out by the Russians, who also want to push back and constrain Iran's influence in the Middle East, I guess. A Trump-Rouhani meeting would make more sense than the Trump-Kim summit did, by the way.
#14937446
@Ter

Actually there are several academics, scholars, and businesses in Iran who have proposals as to how to make Iran self-sufficient. Of course you won't see this in the media since the media does not care for Iranian society, just it's economy.
#14937449
Oxymandias wrote:@Ter

Actually there are several academics, scholars, and businesses in Iran who have proposals as to how to make Iran self-sufficient. Of course you won't see this in the media since the media does not care for Iranian society, just it's economy.


I would be very interested to read about them.
How can the economy be divorced from the politics ?
One can spend the money only once.

And another question : isn't it time to abandon Khomeini's dream of destroying Israel ?
So much money and goodwill going to waste on an adventure with zero probability of success and a hundred percent probability of self-annihilation in case they really tried. It is sheer madness.
#14937513
@Ter

I would be very interested to read about them.


You know Persian?

How can the economy be divorced from the politics ?


It can't, but I'm talking about society not politics. Western media doesn't even mention Iranian society or academia at all to such an extent that many don't even know it exists.

And another question : isn't it time to abandon Khomeini's dream of destroying Israel ?


I find it funny that you think Khomeini wants to actually destroy Israel. I personally think that Khomeini wants to express exactly how much he hates Israel and uses "I want to destroy it" to represent that hate. There is no money going to fighting Israel, you have to be a paranoid lunatic to think so. The military budget is primarily for defense and Iran's military doctrine reinforces that. Iran doesn't have a military capable of offensive (just like Israel), it's just there for defense.

So much money and goodwill going to waste on an adventure with zero probability of success and a hundred percent probability of self-annihilation in case they really tried. It is sheer madness.


Iran won't be nuked, either by the US or Israel. The war will likely result in a stalemate due to Iran being unable to directly fight Israel and Israel being unable to directly fight them as well. If the US gets involved, for some reason, Iran would probably win since they would be doing what they do best, defend against foreign enemies. I have already written a post about why Iran would win in the event of a war with the US in this thread.
#14937520
JohnRawls wrote:Name me a G8 leader in recent times who was/is not a warmonger in your opinion? Teresa May i guess but anybody else?


Tereza May??? England not a warmonger?? :lol: At certain level, Putin's Russia was the one that prevented USA/UK/France to implode the Middle East through the Syrian proxy war
#14937521
Ter wrote:I would be very interested to read about them.
How can the economy be divorced from the politics ?
One can spend the money only once.

And another question : isn't it time to abandon Khomeini's dream of destroying Israel ?
So much money and goodwill going to waste on an adventure with zero probability of success and a hundred percent probability of self-annihilation in case they really tried. It is sheer madness.


Doesn't NWO, Globalists and EU depend on the self destruction of the Middle East (Israel included) to implant their own one Government regime?? Doubt they will stop fueling the crazy in Iran ....they count on their craziness to succeed.
#14937634
Oxymandias wrote: There is no money going to fighting Israel, you have to be a paranoid lunatic to think so. The military budget is primarily for defense and Iran's military doctrine reinforces that. Iran doesn't have a military capable of offensive (just like Israel), it's just there for defense.

You are repeating the obvious propaganda of the regime.
So financing Hezbollah is an expense for defence ?
Developing ballistic missiles is for defence ?
Deployment of Iranian military in Syria is for defence ?
Instigating and implementing terrorism around the globe is for defence ?

Except for all that, the threats by high-up military Iranians are just rhetoric ?

Sorry I don't buy it.

At the moment we are witnessing a significant collapse of the Iranian economy including internal strife which in my opinion is more important than the military aspects.
#14937642
@Ter

You are repeating the obvious propaganda of the regime.
So financing Hezbollah is an expense for defence ?
Developing ballistic missiles is for defence ?
Deployment of Iranian military in Syria is for defence ?
Instigating and implementing terrorism around the globe is for defence ?


The regime has done nothing but spout propaganda about how they want to destroy Israel, this is me directly opposing that propaganda. Or is anything I say that you disagree with Iranian propaganda?

Financing Hezbollah has more to do with funding a Shia ally in the Levant than anything else. Funding Hezbollah gives Iran a sure way to project power into Lebanon.

Yes, developing ballistic missiles is for defense. The US has worse shit under it's disposal but apparently only the West can have ballistic missiles to defend itself and the Middle East can have jackshit. As long as it's easier for the West to project power, then it's fine but god forbid a foreign non-western country utilize ballistic missiles for mere defense.

That is to procure Iranian interests in Syria. The US, Russia, and even fucking Saudi Arabia are doing it. This is not about fighting Israel, Israel isn't the objective otherwise it would be much easier to build bases in Lebanon than in fucking Syria. Iran is also building bases in Iraq so your suspicions make no sense.

Iran is not instigating or implementing terrorism around the globe. 1. Iran does not have the resources nor the military capabilities to do that and 2. it would bring no benefit to Iran to instigate terrorism around the globe and would just be a waste of time and money; what does Iran gain from funding terrorists in China or Europe? '

If you want to find a country which does instigate and implement terrorism around the globe, look at the US which does have the resource and capabilities to do so as well as have something to gain from doing so.

At the moment we are witnessing a significant collapse of the Iranian economy including internal strife which in my opinion is more important than the military aspects.


Yeah, because it was me who started talking about Iran having a war with Israel. Sure...

Not only that, but this discussion was talking about the Iranian society and how it plans on improving the Iranian economy. This should be important to you, because how a nation solves it's problems is just as important as the economy itself. It is by a nations actions that the economy is effected so you should be looking into what Iranian academics are proposing. That is unless you get off on Iran's suffering. It's fine, everyone has their fetish.
#14937648
Oxymandias wrote:Iran is not instigating or implementing terrorism around the globe.

That is an interesting position to take.
Deny, deny, deny.
So the most recent plot to explode a bomb in France during the opposition meeting is fiction ?
The Iranian couple arrested transporting a bomb with necessary equipment from Belgium to France who admitted being pressurised to do so by the Iranian Authorities because their remaining families in Iran would otherwise suffer ?
The Iranian "diplomat" in Austria who was arrested because he is the instigator and organiser of that particular terrorist plot ?

And let's just mention the blowing up of the Jewish Social Centre in Argentina in the 1990s, killing almost 100 innocent civilians ?
Or the blowing up of the bus in Bulgaria more recently, to kill a group of Israeli tourists ?
Or the terrorist network with Iranians in Cyprus ?

The "deny, deny, deny" strategy doesn't work for adulterous husbands and neither for Iran.
#14937665
@Ter

Deny, deny, deny.


For the most part, I have not constantly denied but offered several explanations for Iran's actions.

So the most recent plot to explode a bomb in France during the opposition meeting is fiction ?


Based on the information I have, it's ambiguous as to whether or not Iran instigated the bombing or if it was simply done by the couple out of their own volition. However,

The Iranian couple arrested transporting a bomb with necessary equipment from Belgium to France who admitted being pressurised to do so by the Iranian Authorities because their remaining families in Iran would otherwise suffer ?


I have no such information. Could you please tell me where you got this information? In other words, what is the source? Furthermore, the wife is the only one of Iranian origin. The husband is Belgian. This is not an "Iranian couple" by any means. Why, they didn't even live in Iran so they would be a Belgian couple.

The Iranian "diplomat" in Austria who was arrested because he is the instigator and organiser of that particular terrorist plot ?


Has there been any evidence that the Iranian diplomat is the instigator and organizer of the plot?

And let's just mention the blowing up of the Jewish Social Centre in Argentina in the 1990s, killing almost 100 innocent civilians ?


The perpetrators were Ansar Allah one of the fronts of Hezbollah and it's one that Hezbollah has given autonomy to. Iran funds Hezbollah. Therefore, only if you jump through several mental hoops is Iran the perpetrators of the bombing.

Or the blowing up of the bus in Bulgaria more recently, to kill a group of Israeli tourists ?


Israel's Prime Minister, whose name is too long and complicated for me to write, made that accusation despite there being no evidence of Iran's or Hezbollah's involvement.

Or the terrorist network with Iranians in Cyprus ?


That isn't a terrorist network, that's just one guy attacking Israelis. While Hezbollah was directly involved that doesn't matter to Iran. Iran funds Hezbollah for one purpose only, to let it project power into the Levant. The media merely associated Hezbollah and Iran together because Iran funds Hezbollah despite not having that much of an influence on how Hezbollah actually operates. You don't see people blaming America for everything ISIS does despite creating them in the first place.

The "deny, deny, deny" strategy doesn't work for adulterous husbands and neither for Iran.


That is certainly a strange analogy.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 14

The tail has been wagging the dog.. Israel is a[…]

Candace Owens

She has, and to add gravitas to what she has said[…]

@litwin is clearly an Alex Jones type conspirac[…]

Both of them have actually my interest at heart. […]