Iran : War or Regime Change ? - 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.
User avatar
By Ter
#14934823
It looks as if the ruling Ayathollas have gotten themselves in too deep with the Donald.
They were already in conflict with Israel over their military presence in Syria.
Several Arab countries in the Gulf are fervent enemies of Iran.

Trump to Iran: ‘Never, ever threaten the United States again’
US president says Islamic Republic could face consequences 'the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered'


Image

President Donald Trump on Sunday warned Iran of consequences “the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered,” if it threatens the United States.

“NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE,” he said on Twitter in a direct message to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

“WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!” Trump said, writing the entire message in capital letters.

The response came after Rouhani earlier Sunday issued his own warning to the US leader not to “play with the lion’s tail,” saying that conflict with Iran would be the “mother of all wars.”

The high-stakes verbal sparring is reminiscent of the exchanges Trump had last year with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, before tensions eased and the two leaders met this year in an historic summit.

Trump has made Iran a favorite target since his unexpected rapprochement with nuclear-armed North Korea.

Earlier Sunday US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the United States is not “afraid to tackle” Iranian officials with sanctions at the “highest level” of its government.

Following the US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear accord that stunned even Washington’s closest European allies, Pompeo on May 21 unveiled a “new strategy” intended to force Iran to yield to a dozen stringent demands.

“We weren’t afraid to tackle the regime at its highest level,” Pompeo said in a speech in California, referring to sanctions leveled in January against Sadeq Larijani, the head of Iran’s judiciary.

In a highly critical broadside issued as the republic approached the 40th anniversary of its Islamic revolution and the US prepared to reimpose the economic sanctions, Pompeo said the government has “heartlessly repressed its own people’s human rights, dignity and fundamental freedoms.”

Going beyond the Iranian political and military echelon, Pompeo called the religious leaders of Iran “hypocritical holy men” who he said amassed vast sums of wealth while allowing their people to suffer.

“Sometimes it seems the world has become desensitized to the regime’s authoritarianism at home and its campaigns of violence abroad, but the proud Iranian people are not staying silent about their government’s many abuses,” the US’s top diplomat charged.

“And the United States under President Trump will not stay silent either. In light of these protests and 40 years of regime tyranny, I have a message for the people of Iran: The United States hears you. The United States supports you. The United States is with you,” he said.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-to- ... tes-again/

In capital letters lol. The Donald is angry.

The Ayathollas are used to threaten Israel and other countries but they probably did not expect this kind of response.
Earlier they threatened to close the Straight of Hormuz to all oil shipments if they could no longer sell their oil because of the American sanctions. I believe if they tried that it would already be the end of their regime.

The last dictator who threatened with "The mother of all Fights" was Sadam Hossein.

Edited to add : Except for all that, the Iranian currency has recently lost half its value and there are serious economic problems, including a disastrous drought in certain areas in Iran.
#14934830
War is not a good idea here, and I think Trump is bluffing, as he does most of the time.

No one can afford it and the biggest victim would be Iranians themselves. Hopefully the US and Russia can come to terms with Iran. If anything, Iran will implode; the leadership there are focused on completely irrelevant, religiously minded issues. The country is extending its influence by proxy while its people at home are suffering.

What is the common idea... If a country becomes prosperous, it will oust its own tyrants, or is it better to contain the tyrants, i.e., blockade or direct relations? Supporting African tyrants hasn't been the most effective of policies.
#14934839
Ter wrote:It looks as if the ruling Ayathollas have gotten themselves in too deep with the Donald.
They were already in conflict with Israel over their military presence in Syria.
Several Arab countries in the Gulf are fervent enemies of Iran.


https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-to- ... tes-again/

In capital letters lol. The Donald is angry.

The Ayathollas are used to threaten Israel and other countries but they probably did not expect this kind of response.
Earlier they threatened to close the Straight of Hormuz to all oil shipments if they could no longer sell their oil because of the American sanctions. I believe if they tried that it would already be the end of their regime.

The last dictator who threatened with "The mother of all Fights" was Sadam Hossein.

Edited to add : Except for all that, the Iranian currency has recently lost half its value and there are serious economic problems, including a disastrous drought in certain areas in Iran.


Regime change. The question is what will come after?

War is out of the question. Iran has far too many allies with far too large of a population. It would require a far larger version of Desert Storm to do something about Iran militarily. Not to mention where are you going to concentrate the forces?

1) Iraq? I doubt they have the infrastructure to support such an offensive from their territory. What if it stalls?
2) Turkey? It would require covering a lot more ground so not the most efficient. Tehran is close but the rest of the country isn't.
3) Turkmenistan? Same as Turkey but less infrastructure.
4) Afganistan? The worst idea possible perhaps. Not only Taliban is around but also no real infrastructure to speak of.
5) Pakistan? Hard to say. I doubt Pakistan will allow it in the first place.
6) Beach landings? - This ain't WW2. Very risky.
#14934847
I don’t see Trump committing ground troops. He would go for non stop aerial attacks on a massive scale however. The attacks would not be limited as has become the norm imo. He does not seem the type to risk success due to ‘fair play’. He will want a ‘decisive win’ and send a message to potential enemies.
Ofcourse we have never figured out the truth on the success of the attack on Syria, so any attack would depend upon the known effectiveness of Russian made defense systems.
#14934867
They'll come around like with North Korea.

Iran might even know that! :lol:
#14934871
Through my wife I have a lot of in-laws in Iran so the idea of war makes me queasy. The government there since the Islamic revolution are absolutely pigshit thick crazy fundies though so I can understand anyone militarily slapping them down. I prefer regime change though I don't know how a regime may be changed without either a war or a violent insurrection and the latter is unlikely at this time. In the long run containment may work, the USSR was worn down that way.
Last edited by SolarCross on 23 Jul 2018 14:56, edited 1 time in total.
#14934876
Probably both.
If the clerical regime started falling apart, the old dynasties leading the tribes will probably take over, however the two most powerful dynasties that are still around with enough wealth, manpower and weapons under them to take over (the Timurs and Osmanis) will, under a number of scenarios, fight each other to who will take over.
This wont the 1979 type of event, the tribes began rearming to a great degree after the Iraq war in the 1980s.
So they are far more of a powerhouse in the country now.

So basically there will be a short war or a few skirmishes going around, during that period its highly likely the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia will try to support some of the separatist movements in the west of the country in order to weaken Iran by taking portions of the Zagross mountains and turning it allied.
We're talking mainly Kurds, Azaris, and Arabs in western Iran.
If that did happen, and its very likely, mainly by Saudi Arabia since its very close and cant act directly, its almost inevitable to see 2 things, first; once the dispute to whom will take over is settled, a crack down on any separatist population to insure the mountain line remain within the country so basically a massacre.
And two, based on how these dynasties usually act, a retaliation against whom ever supported them; So war, With high probability of US involvement.

Now, can the US land an invasion against Iran with the support of a coalition ? Probably yes.
Will it succeed ? almost impossible to succeed.
Iran and both main tribal forces in it are not like Iraq, all 3 have large standing armies with heavy armament. And a war fought on Iranian territory will give a huge advantage to the home forces as it'll already be centered around heavily fortified and defensible positions across the various mountain ranges in and around Iran. Which would be incredibly difficult to defeat even for the largest and most armed armies in the world. There is a reason why its called the walls of Iran, its very hard to pass.

Not to mention maintaining logistics. Iranian forces will have much shorter and easily defended supply lines all while not only incredibly hard to establish but also very long supply lines for enemy forces that also just happens to be very easily attacked and blockaded due to the mountainous nature of the land.
Think Afghanistan mountains on steroids, is what you'd be dealing with in Iran.
#14934927
anasawad wrote:Think Afghanistan mountains on steroids, is what you'd be dealing with in Iran.

The Afghan war is still ongoing but hardly more than a feisty peasant uprising. US casualties are small.

The US with allies can roll Iran like they did Iraq. Iranians won't even see any ground troops until they have weathered waves and waves of cruise missiles, stealth bombers and much else beside. And that's exercising restraint by not using any of those tens of thousands of strategic nuclear ICBMs...
#14934928
@anasawad
I think that once the ayatollahs are out, a new regime will take over and if they stop the nonsense of arming terrorists and threatening other countries, there is no reason anyone would want to invade Iran.
#14934955
skinster wrote:What the world needs now, is another regime-change war.

Yes you are right, in the case of Iran that would be a positive development.
Peace would return to Syria, Iraq and Yemen.
:excited:
#14934957
Despite your psychotic fantasies, there isn't going to be a regime change war for Israel on Iran. Syria had to fall before the Iranian domino, according to the neocons PNAC agenda, but did you notice lately how that didn't happen? Russia is also in alliance with Iran. Iran is likely very prepared for attacks/regime change, since that happened not that many decades ago. They have a million-strong standing army and allies within the region. Sucks for Israel and people like you, but so it goes. 8)
#14934966
skinster wrote:Russia is also in alliance with Iran.

And it's not only their military, logistic, diplomatic, etc. support that matters here. If Israel wants a US president that really means to go to war with Iran, they should implant someone else than Trump in the White House. :lol:

I also wonder whether how much reluctant or willing the US military and Trump's own defense secretary would be to do that.
#14934977
@SolarCross
hmmmmm, you do realize that there are 1- Anti-air defenses in Iran, both native and imported systems. and 2- Iran also has an airforce and a missile arsenal that it can use. Right ?
I don't know what you personally think, but I personally believe that if a war broke out, those would be used to the fullest extent; Because, you know, logic.
:)


@Ter
Even with a new regime, Iran remains a major power in the region and a new regime if it was one of the old dynasties which is the most likely scenario, will be far far more aggressive in pursuing geopolitical interests.
The clerics give the impression of strength as much as they can, but they're weak, and standing on shaky ground.
An imperial dynasty not only have much larger wealth to fund its reign, but also doesn't have to worry about most of the things the clerics do have to.
Remember, we're not talking about new dynasties or ones who were in the imperial court but just now becaming rulers. We're talking about the Timurs whose bloodline built 2 previous empires and go back over 2000 years, and the Osmanis whose bloodline also built 2 previous empires and go back over 2000 years.
And they're the most powerful ones currently and the next regime is almost guaranteed to be one of them.

Saudi Arabia specially and the gulf states in general will be under a much bigger threat if the empire returned, and the Saudi support for Kurdish and Sunni Arab separatists in the western regions wont go unnoticed or unpunished when that happens.
#14934984
anasawad wrote:@SolarCross
hmmmmm, you do realize that there are 1- Anti-air defenses in Iran, both native and imported systems. and 2- Iran also has an airforce and a missile arsenal that it can use. Right ?
I don't know what you personally think, but I personally believe that if a war broke out, those would be used to the fullest extent; Because, you know, logic.
:)

Yes and Iraq had that stuff too. Having air defences doesn't necessarily mean they will be adequate. Did I really need to say that? :lol:
#14934986
Neither China or Russia will support Iran to a level where they could survive a conflict with the US. Neither would tolerate a truly powerful Muslim Iran that would arise out of surviving a US attack.
#14934988
@SolarCross
Iraq was a country that drained its equipment and supplies over a decade before the war, and was under blockade, couldn't import weapons or equipments or upgrades, didn't have native industries, didn't have many scientists, didn't have enough supplies to do anything, and was in what can be described as an ongoing civil war for several years by the time the final invasion came.
Also Iraq barely has any resources within its borders.

Iran doesn't have any of those problems, has tons of resources, supplies, stability, much larger population, manpower, and a standing army with a significant and to some extent major native defense industry.
In the same time, Iraq is mostly flat and easy to invade, Iran is the exact opposite.

And for the previous afghanistan comment, the Taliban are currently expanding and taking more and more land from the US and its client state.
#14934995
@anasawad
Sure, Iran will be harder than Iraq, but Iraq was easy, that's not a very high bar to beat. All I am saying is that Iran-US war will be an Armageddon like catastrophe for Iran and at worst a challenging excursion for the US. It is the Iranian governors who are playing with the Lion's tail and not the other way around.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 11

YOU did not OBSERVE "GOD" say that. YO[…]

They already are since their current options are […]

The Evolution Fraud

Faith doesn't require evidence. What is dishonest[…]

^ I didn't know there was a video on it. Brit[…]