Is the war between the United States and Iran inevitable? If so, what are the consequences? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14952889
Is the war between the United States and Iran inevitable? If so, what are the consequences?

Rand Paul joins Senate effort to block funds for a war with Iran

There is now a bipartisan effort in Congress to make it harder for President Trump to attack Tehran.
October 11, 2018 1:20 pm
While the Brett Kavanaugh drama was tearing apart Washington last week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) quietly signed on to a Democrat-led bill prohibiting the use of federal money for a war against Iran without Congress’s express approval.
The legislation would, however, allow for US military action against Iran without congressional approval “in response to an imminent threat to the United States” or “to rescue or remove United States citizens or personnel,” according to the text of the bill.
The Prevention of Unconstitutional War With Iran Act of 2018 is sponsored by Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), and Paul becomes the ninth senator — and the first Republican — to put his name on the bill.
When contacted by Vox, Paul’s office declined to comment.
The legislation’s introduction last month came hours after President Trump chaired a meeting of the United Nations Security Council focused mainly on Iran and nuclear proliferation. The Trump administration has taken a hard stance against Tehran, removing the US from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and reimposing sanctions on the country that the agreement previously lifted.
And last month, Trump used his speech at the UN General Assembly in New York to hammer Iran over its support for terrorism and aggression against US allies in the Middle East, ratcheting up the tensions between the two countries.
“Iran’s leaders sow chaos, death, and destruction,” Trump told the hundreds of world leaders gathered for the meeting. “They do not respect their neighbors or borders, or the sovereign rights of nations. Instead, Iran’s leaders plunder the nation’s resources to enrich themselves and to spread mayhem across the Middle East and far beyond.”
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani responded, claiming the US was responsible for “economic terrorism” toward his country.
Trump’s team repeatedly says it doesn’t seek any kind of regime change in Iran and that it wants to avoid a war, if possible. However, the administration also says that it wants Iran to change its behavior, remove troops and proxies from Syria, and stop interfering in Iraq’s politics partially by favoring Tehran-friendly candidates.
Still, senators like Udall and others — now including Paul — worry that a conflict with Tehran may not be far off if both sides continue their standoff.
“The Trump administration’s approach to Iran is ripped straight out of the same playbook that launched us into the failed invasion of Iraq, and Congress needs to assert its constitutional authority and halt the march to war,” Udall said in a statement when he introduced the legislation.
The president and his allies are “inching us closer and closer to conflict, endangering our national security, jeopardizing our diplomatic interests, and alarming our allies,” he said.
Congress is trying to reimpose its authority
The legislation faces an uncertain, but likely bleak, future.
First, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee must consider the measure and then pass it. If that happens, it could possibly make it onto the full Senate floor for a vote. And even if the Senate approves the measure there, it’s unclear if the president would sign the bill into law.
But even if the bill doesn’t become law, it’s the latest signal that Congress wants to curb the president’s power to unilaterally launch a war.
The Constitution says that Congress is the only governmental body with the power to declare war. But debate still swirls around whether a president can launch military strikes or even start a war without congressional approval, in part because some presidents say that being commander in chief gives the president unlimited authority to carry out military operations.
That’s why Udall felt it was worth putting forward the Iran legislation.
“The lives of American service members and the trajectory of US foreign policy should not be dependent on the whims of one president, Democrat or Republican,” he told me. Congress should act “as a check on the executive, urging restraint and diplomacy.”
A few members of Congress, like Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Mike Lee (R-UT), previously tried to claw back some of Congress’s control over wartime decisions.
In March, for example, those three lawmakers tried (and failed) to gain enough votes for legislation to stop US support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen. While the main reason was to end America’s participation in a horrible humanitarian catastrophe, it was also an attempt to reimpose Congress’s authority over whether and when the US goes to war.
And others, like Sens. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ), have proposed legislation to make sure the president asks Congress for permission before starting any war.
Yet confronting Iran has become a bitterly partisan issue, with Republicans typically preferring a more aggressive stance while Democrats tend to prefer a diplomatic approach. It’s therefore likely that a Senate vote over the bill — both in committee and on the full floor — would split the chamber along party lines.
At a minimum, though, putting the bill forward may restart a decades-long conversation about what a war with Iran might mean — including the certain death of many US troops and thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Iranians.


https://www.vox.com/2018/10/11/17906090 ... -rand-paul
#14952902
Rancid wrote:War ain't gonna happen.


Put it this way. If Congress is trying to cut funds for a Trump inspired US war with with Iran then a war must be a possibility. Why has Trump abandoned the Iran Deal?

http://i65.tinypic.com/1628uhy.jpg

October 4th 2018
Three years ago, as Americans debated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran—popularly known as “the Iran deal”—I highlighted a troubling media trend on FAIR.org (8/20/15): “For nearly all commentators, regardless of their position, war is the only alternative to that position.”
In the months since US President Donald Trump tore up the JCPOA agreement, his administration has been trying to make good on corporate media’s collective prediction. Last week, John Bolton (BBC,9/26/18), Trump’s national security advisor and chief warmonger, told Iran’s leaders and the world that there would be “hell to pay” if they dare to “cross us.”

http://i63.tinypic.com/15pr0jr.jpg

That Bolton’s bellicose statements do not send shockwaves of pure horror across a debt-strapped and war-weary United States is thanks in large part to incessant priming for war, facilitated by corporate media across the entire political spectrum, with a particular focus on Iran.
Back in 2015, while current “resistance” stalwarts like the Washington Post(4/2/15) and Politico (8/11/15) warned us that war with Iran was the most likely alternative to the JCPOA, conservative standard-bearers such as Fox News (7/14/15) and the Washington Times (8/10/15) foretold that war with Iran was the agreement’s most likely outcome. Three years hence, this dynamic has not changed.

https://fair.org/home/trump-admin-follo ... with-iran/
#14961660


Patrick Clawson is an American economist and Middle East scholar. He is currently the Director for Research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and senior editor of Middle East Quarterly. A Morningstar senior fellow and director of research at the Washington Institute, where he directs the Viterbi Program on Iran and U.S. Policy. Widely consulted as an analyst and media commentator, he has authored more than 150 articles about the Middle East and international economics and is the author or editor of eighteen books or studies on Iran.

Dr. Clawson appears frequently on television and radio, and has published op-ed articles in major newspapers including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post. He has also testified before congressional committees more than twenty times and has served as an expert witness in more than thirty federal cases against Iran. Prior to joining The Washington Institute, he was a senior research professor at the National Defense University's Institute for National Strategic Studies, a senior economist at the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and a research scholar at the Foreign Policy Research Institute.


Making Sure War Occurs

Recently, Patrick Clawson, who heads the Washington Institute’s Iran Security Initiative, answered a question at a conference as to what should be done if negotiations with Tehran fail.

In his answer, Mr. Clawson first stated that, “Crisis initiation is really tough. It’s very hard for me to see how the United States President can get us to war with Iran.”

If Mr. Clawson said nothing more following this statement, he would have said a mouthful.

Unlike much of America, who appear to hope that war can be avoided, Mr. Clawson not only does not appear to hope to avoid war with Iran, he describes war as an objective.

This, in itself, should give Americans, and indeed all of the world, pause. However, Mr. Clawson continues.

The traditional way America gets to war is what would be best for US interests. Some people might think that Mister Roosevelt wanted to get us into World War II. You might recall that we had to wait for Pearl Harbour. Some people might think that Mister Wilson wanted to get us into World War I. You may recall that we had to wait for the Lusitania episode. Some people might think that Mister Johnson wanted to send troops into Viet Nam. You may recall that we had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin episode. We didn’t go to war with Spain until the Maine exploded. May I point out that Mister Lincoln did not feel he could call out the federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing that the South Carolinians said would cause an attack. So, if, in fact, the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war… We could step up the pressure… We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We could get nastier at that.



Crisis initiation: a theoretical exploration of a neglected topic in international crisis theory*

Extract

The injection of a western world-view into a research field has never been more apparent than in the study—or rather the non-study—of crisis initiation. The status quo orientation of western strategic thought has led to a predisposition to view international crises as generically ‘bad’ and disruptive processes. The utilization of crises as a foreign policy instrument has long been perceived as taboo, despite the enormous diversity of crisis theory and research, and despite the locus of crisis at the ‘center of gravity’ between peaceful and violent interactions among states.


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 7A73F8F3D6

In the public journals international crises are attributed to “miscalculation” and “misperception” and deterrence and avoidance are emphasized. In the classified studies conducted by major defense think tanks like Rand Corp it's all about how to deliberately trigger and escalate a crisis, how to manage and manipulate public perception of the crisis, and how to exploit a deliberately manufactured crisis to the fullest possible benefit.
#14961670
That was pretty infantile.

But seriously, Iran should stop their aggressive behaviour and support to terrorist groups including supplying weapons to them. If let's say a heavy rocket explodes in Tel Aviv Iran won't be allowed to hide behind the skirts of Hezbollah. They will and should suffer a direct counter-attack on Tehran @ 100 times the destruction and loss of lives. I think they know that already.\
And if it escalates from there, so be it. It might end with releasing some canned sunlight, who knows ?

Becoming a nice and peaceful country is of course the better option.
#14961683
They will and should suffer a direct counter-attack on Tehran @ 100 times the destruction and loss of lives


No they shouldn't.

And it won't escalate from there. Stop dreaming. If Hezbollah hit Tel Aviv, Netanyahu is not going to attack Iran and you know it. He will attack Hezbollah directly.

Stop dreaming of the use of Nuclear weapons. It won't happen.

If Israel goes "Eye For An Eye, Tooth For A Tooth"(I'm sorry this your historical cultural belief Ter, I feel sorry for you, as you know a certain Jew opposed this belief) I think that might be curtains time on the friendship with Egypt et al.
#14961876
Looks like our ignorant politicians will destroy our foreign policy again. The worse thing they can do is limit the impact of the perception of an ‘impulsive Trump’. Trump doesn’t want war with anyone. He is just using false impressions of himself to get other countries to be less confrontational. It has been working. Appeasement was not helping the US at all. The appeasers just won’t let go of their idealism. Leave Trump alone. He knows what he is doing.
#14961884
Ter wrote:But seriously, Iran should stop their aggressive behaviour and support to terrorist groups including supplying weapons to them. If let's say a heavy rocket explodes in Tel Aviv Iran won't be allowed to hide behind the skirts of Hezbollah. They will and should suffer a direct counter-attack on Tehran @ 100 times the destruction and loss of lives. I think they know that already.\
And if it escalates from there, so be it. It might end with releasing some canned sunlight, who knows ?

Becoming a nice and peaceful country is of course the better option.


Let's be honest, the USA, Israel and Saudi-Arabia (the unholy trinity) are a lot more aggressive than Iran. I'm not saying that Iran is perfect, but it's pretty hilarious and insulting to see Americans and Israelis point their fingers at Iran or some other bogeyman.
#14961891
War between the United States and Iran is inevitable, without a doubt. The consequence would be the destruction of the Iranian Islamic Republic and the shattering of Iran, but also the effort would lead to the direct terminal decline of the United States as a world power.
#14962193
Code Rood wrote:Let's be honest, the USA, Israel and Saudi-Arabia (the unholy trinity) are a lot more aggressive than Iran. I'm not saying that Iran is perfect, but it's pretty hilarious and insulting to see Americans and Israelis point their fingers at Iran or some other bogeyman.


Exactly. Considering there's been an economic war of terrorism on Iran for many years via sanctions, a previous Western coup, as well as there being, currently, Western troops in countries that surround Iran, to suggest that Iran is a threat is absolute bullshit coming from psychopathic warmongers who should basically be sectioned or thrown into a volcano, imho. :)

People supporting war on Iran are the same people who would cry about brown people fleeing Western wars and entering the West, but you can't have it both ways, as this is exactly what would happen if military war is made on Iran.

The same people would probably cry about dead soldiers today, while promoting a line that would equate to more dead soldiers if this war were to take place.

annatar1914 wrote:War between the United States and Iran is inevitable, without a doubt. The consequence would be the destruction of the Iranian Islamic Republic and the shattering of Iran, but also the effort would lead to the direct terminal decline of the United States as a world power.


I don't believe war on Iran is inevitable, but the neocons/wahabis/zionists will try their hardest to make it happen, as they continue to do. They needed Syria to fall before Iran did, but that didn't happen in the way they wanted. Syria would no doubt support Iran if war came to be. As well as, hopefully Russia.

War on Iran would be absolutely disgusting, not just because of the lives dead or ruined, but Iran has some of the oldest art in the world and for that to be destroyed or looted like it did in Iraq and Syria, would be terrible.
#14962199
skinster wrote:People supporting war on Iran are the same people who would cry about brown people fleeing Western wars and entering the West, but you can't have it both ways, as this is exactly what would happen if military war is made on Iran.


They aren't really western wars when you understand who controls western countries, especially the USA. Funnily enough, both the mainstream left and mainstream right will be outraged over this, because they know exactly what I mean. And I'd probably get banned from this forum if I decide to take this a little further.
#14962218
@skinster ,


You said;



I don't believe war on Iran is inevitable, but the neocons/wahabis/zionists will try their hardest to make it happen, as they continue to do.


Well, that rouge's alliance is exactly why I think US war on Iran is inevitable. Of course, each member of this misfits alliance has different and competing interests in seeing Iran destroyed, but they all see Iran as the regional threat to their aspirations.


They needed Syria to fall before Iran did, but that didn't happen in the way they wanted.


No, not yet anyway, but they're willing to try some other means of drawing Iran into the trap of being the ones to fire the first shot.



Syria would no doubt support Iran if war came to be. As well as, hopefully Russia.



That's a big maybe, who else would get involved in what would easily develop into a WWIII scenario.

War on Iran would be absolutely disgusting, not just because of the lives dead or ruined, but Iran has some of the oldest art in the world and for that to be destroyed or looted like it did in Iraq and Syria, would be terrible.


I think ultimately in order to accomplish the larger goals of the Western Elites, war is an inevitable factor in all this
#14962223
annatar1914 wrote:No, not yet anyway, but they're willing to try some other means of drawing Iran into the trap of being the ones to fire the first shot.


It's not going to happen though because Iran isn't suicidal.

That's a big maybe, who else would get involved in what would easily develop into a WWIII scenario.


Not really a maybe, Syria supported Iran fight a defensive war a few decades ago and Iran is returning that favour currently. The Russians in Syria could've developed into a WW3 scenario too, especially if psycho Clinton won the last election, that didn't stop them from aiding Syria.

I think ultimately in order to accomplish the larger goals of the Western Elites, war is an inevitable factor in all this


Well, obviously that's what they want, whether they get it is another question.
#14962290
I think the US should try to cripple Iran's key allies -- Russia and China first. Otherwise it's stupid to fight a proxy war.

The country is at such a proximity to Russia, and with so few sea access, that it's very hard for the US to win. Besides, it's probably the 2nd or 3rd most democratic Middle East country, after Israel and at its best, on par with Turkey or Lebanon (all things aside, being able to come up with a compromise like Rouhani very much shows how mature Iran's democracy is. Yes it is flawed, but if the people, with or without power, are able to compromise, it should be appreciated. Even Hong Kong or Taiwan don't have such capacity!). Fighting a war with such a sizable democratic country will very much make Trump a laughing stock, and get him in a trouble no less than the one encountered by George W. Bush.

In anyway, I not only think it's inevitable to have a war between the US and Iran, it's probably inevitable that a WW3 between the East and the West will happen in the near future.

See you in the Lake of fire!
#14962329
War is inevitable. And Iran has been, for many years, preparing to counter an attack and pretty much set the region on fire.
And the war wont be just with the clerics but with the Iranian eastern tribes as well.

In a war scenario, An Azari betrayal is expected which is why anyone following local news in Iran would notice that massive increase in military presence in the north west and west of the country by the Iranian defense forces, revolutionary guards and tribal armies; The intent ofcourse is to insure that once a war starts and those little guys turn against us, they'll be liquidated fairly quickly and the mountain line will be strongly defended.

Air defense deployment are also increasing massively through the years of 2017 and 2018.

Any NATO invasion would most likely utilize the Turkish-Iranian borders and potentially Azerbaijani borders, the Hashmiri tribes (kurdish but has allegiance with the Hazzars and the government) will use asymmetric warfare to spread chaos, distrub supply lines and potentially neuter any invading force within Azzari and Turkish territories.

Another potential front is the south west Arab areas through Iraq, which 'm sure I don't need to explain what forces does Iran have in Iraq and how they'll be used.

For the south west through Pakistan, any invading army will have to cross Balochi territories, whom have been negotiating more and more autonomy and self governance in the recent years, which under a war scenario will most likely mean they'll be attacking any invading army in order to secure their autonomy not only in Iran but also in Pakistan, a US ally and a major enemy of the Balochis.

On the naval front, there will be heavy use of submarine, mine, and land based missile warfare against any approaching naval forces.

On a regional front, the US and allies will have to fight against Hezbollah (obviously) and the Baalbak tribes in Lebanon, Syria and all its allied militias, most of Iraq, the large Shommari Shia tribes spread across Saudi Arabia and Oman, Yemeni Houthis, various Kurdish tribes with Allegiance with the Hashmiris in Turkey and Iraq, And if anyone bothers to follow Lebanese news; they'll know that there is a growing alliance between the Shias and Christians of the middle east, so potentially also include Lebanese and Egyptian Christians.


My personal expectations for the results are;
The clerics in Iran wont survive the war and an imperial dynasty will take over and continue the war in their place.
Unstable governments like that of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will be too weak to stand and fall either during or shortly after the war.
Pakistan and Turkey will go into pretty much an all out civil war as Turkey will have to deal with Kurds and Pakistan will have to deal with the Balochis along with all the south western ethnic and national groups already either seeking independence or the replacement of the government.


Jordan is highly unlikely to remain stable as the Palestinians representing a majority of its population see the last source of support (Iran) being attacked, add to that the massive corruption and rage due to it currently present with routine protests, there is a significant probability to see Jordan falling into chaos and potentially civil war as Bani Sakher and Bani Hasan tribes (each account for 1-1.5 million members) will most pursue autonomy and potentially independence, this time with more success than the previous times in the early 2000s and 1990s as the government is and will be alot weaker.

Bahrain will mostly see its government gone due to multiple already existing reasons and causes that a Iran-Saudi war will massively escalate and essentially set the country on fire and have the minority Sunni rule decapitated.


Generally speaking, although it would be an extremely bloody and highly destructive war, I do see the results as fairly good in the long term.
Iran will be able to restore internal balance with a legitimate dynasty back on the throne.
Saudi Arabia and the gulf states will go bye bye.
The US will be significantly weakened if not forced to withdraw from the region due to the heavy losses and attrition it'll suffer.
The US will also most likely see an economic crash as the war would set off many existing economic bubbles that even without a war expected to cause a meltdown, so that'll be accelerated and its position on the world stage will be damaged beyond repair, so bye bye American world order. I'm sure China would be more than happy to kick you to the dust and spread its influence all around.

A regional war will also most likely accelerate Egypt's descent towards a civil war as Christians and Secularists face off with Islamists.
#14962331
I see no reason to believe Iran’s air defenses wouldn’t be immobilized as easy as Iraq’s. Once that is done, the rest of your scenario falls apart. Massive air superiority can not be overcome by ground forces. I actually doubt US ground forces would even be used. A massive air raid and let insurrection do the rest. We have no reason to occupy Iran to destroy their aggressive capabilities.
#14962332
Iraq's air defenses were nearly non existent and by 2003 probably couldn't shoot down a WW2 era squadron.

The US "massive air superiority" effectively became a myth during the late 2000s.
The only reason you, Americans, still believe you can achieve full air superiority and not be shot down is because all your enemies for the past several decades didn't have airforces to begin with.

Using a jet fighter to attack a lightly trained civilian in sandals and holding an AK 47 doesn't exactly qualify to compare with attacking a fully standing army with a modern airforce and air defences.

Agree, except for maybe my possessions. Most of t[…]

:lol: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdHtAzFNwjE[…]

No, I was talking about Gaza.

https://twitter.com/ajitxsingh/status/103297598683[…]