U.S VS Iran getting close

Status
Not open for further replies.

BLUEJACKET

Banned Idiot
Please see my post #35 the hyperlink to another post there. I anticipated NK-Iran nuclear cooperation to evolve to this stage- for them it's a win-win situation. I think the Iranian leadership's rhetoric can't be explained any other way- they know themselves as being on the verge of entering the nuclear wepons states club, and also they may already have some suitcase nukes that went missing in Russia as a backup.

U.S. contingency planning for military action against Iran's nuclear program goes beyond limited strikes and would effectively unleash a war against the country, a former U.S. intelligence analyst said on Friday.
"I've seen some of the planning ... You're not talking about a surgical strike," said Wayne White, who was a top Middle East analyst for the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research until March 2005.
"You're talking about a war against Iran" that likely would destabilize the Middle East for years, White told the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank.
"We're not talking about just surgical strikes against an array of targets inside Iran. We're talking about clearing a path to the targets" by taking out much of the Iranian Air Force, Kilo submarines, anti-ship missiles that could target commerce or U.S. warships in the Gulf, and maybe even Iran's ballistic missile capability, White said.

"I'm much more worried about the consequences of a U.S. or Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear infrastructure," which would prompt vigorous Iranian retaliation, he said, than civil war in Iraq, which could be confined to that country.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

crazyinsane105

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Now, I'm just wondering about this:

Is the sale of 30 referring to batteries or independent launch vehicles?

Hmmm....probably batteries. It said all deliveries had been completed, but this is coming from a Reuters source (guys who don't know a whole lot about the military, if you notice the picture they put up it's of the SA-11 Gladfly and not the Tor-M1). I guess we'll have to wait from a more professional source such as defencetalk.com or even Janes.
 

Vlad Plasmius

Junior Member
Well, other areas I've read that it was "systems" not "batteries" which makes me think it's just that many launch trucks. If it was a battery that would mean around 120 launch trucks for Iran for $700 million overall. That just doesn't sound right.
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Here's a question?

What particular factor does Iran share with Iraq? here are two clues The Island of Kish and the Euro.

Another Clue - Moscow and Shanghai too:confused:

Lets see if you can work this very relevant question out;)
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Pres Bush has authorized US forces in Iraq to engauge Iranians if need be. Last night on the news I heard this order was issued in November 2006.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
2 hours, 41 minutes ago

WASHINGTON -President Bush has authorized U.S. forces in Iraq to take whatever actions are necessary to counter Iranian agents deemed a threat to American troops or the public at large, the White House said Friday.

"It makes sense that if somebody's trying to harm our troops, or stop us from achieving our goal, or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, that we will stop them," Bush said. "It's an obligation we all have ... to protect our folks and achieve our goal."

The aggressive new policy came in response to intelligence that Iran is supporting terrorists inside Iraq and is providing bombs known as improvised explosive devices and other equipment to anti-U.S. insurgents.

"The president and his national security team over the last several months have continued to receive information that Iranians were supplying IED equipment and or training that was being used to harm American soldiers," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.

"As a result American forces, when they receive actionable information, may take the steps necessary to protect themselves as well as the population," Johndroe said.

Bush referred to the new policy in his Jan. 10 address to the nation in which he announced a buildup of 21,500 troops in Iraq. He said the United States would confront Iran and Syria more vigorously.

While promising tougher action, the White House said the United States does not intend to cross the Iraq-Iran border to attack Iranians.

During a picture-taking session Friday with Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, newly confirmed by the Senate to command U.S. troops in Iraq, Bush was asked about stepped-up activities in Iraq against Iranian activities thought to be fueling the violence.

He defended the policy, but said it is no indication that the United States intends to expand the confrontation beyond Iraq's borders.

"That's a presumption that's simply not accurate," Bush said.

But added: "Our policy is going to be to protect our troops. It makes sense."

Five Iranians were detained by U.S.-led forces earlier this month after a raid on an Iranian government liaison office in northern Iraq. The move further frayed relations between the two countries, already tense because of U.S.-led efforts to force Tehran to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program.

"We believe that we can solve our problem with Iran diplomatically and are working to do that," Bush said. "As a matter of fact, we're making pretty good progress on that front."

The administration said at the time that U.S. forces entered an Iranian building in Kurdish-controlled Irbil because information linked it to Revolutionary Guards and other Iranian elements engaging in violent activities in Iraq.

But Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, contended the Iranians were working in a liaison office that had government approval and that the office was in the process of being approved as a consulate. In Iran, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the U.S. raid constituted an intervention in Iranian-Iraqi affairs.
 

Scratch

Captain
Here's a question?

What particular factor does Iran share with Iraq? here are two clues The Island of Kish and the Euro.

Another Clue - Moscow and Shanghai too:confused:

Lets see if you can work this very relevant question out;)

The iranian government has plans to establish an iranian oil bourse on the island of kish, wich is designated as a "free trade zone", and to handle the oil sales in Euro. Iraq had changed to salling it's oil for euros three years prior to GW3 I think. Pres Putin, and someone at the Shanghai oil market have vioced similar thoughts.
If that iranian oil bourse has succes, and others will follow to shift to the euro, the dollars value will drop down sharply. The US is no longer able to handle public debts and will breake down. To prevent that, the US must attack Iran in order to prohibit oil being payed in euros. :D
Please note, this is not serious at all. Aside from that oil in euros thing that should answer Sampan's question I think.
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Hi Scratch

Right on the Money!!

Iran, Russia, and China are all opening (or have opened) International Oil Bourses trading in multiple currencies mainly the Euro and their domestic currencies. Iraq did a similair switch in 2000 (first thing the US did in 2003 was to switch Iraqi oil transactions back to the dollar).

Yes this is a big deal to the US as it risks direct and indirect petrodollar receipts of nearly $900Billion per year with which to fund its $1 Trillion per year budget deficit and without which it risks major loss of real power and influence amid "market difficulties" Worth going to war for?

Incidentally, Iran's nucleur program was started in the early 70's by the Shah who recognised that Iranian oil production was going to peak in the mid 80's and that reserves would become too valuable to burn.

This program was enthusiastically promoted in the US by two young up and comings in the Ford administration. Step forward please M'seurs Cheyne and Rumsfeld:roll:
 

Scratch

Captain
Well sometime it's quiet funny (or tragic?) what was done decades ago and later (now) turns out to be better never have happend.
 

BLUEJACKET

Banned Idiot
Re: currency

I can see how it may be damaging politicaly for the US to pay for oil in Euros, but economicaly I heard it's a nonsense- if you've got $$$ in the first place it doesn't take long to change them into Euros. IMO there is alot more to it then just currency being used!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top