Iranian quandry

[Si Clik]

So we are here agian.

Single world superpower attempts to strong arm a rogue state and we sit at the brink at who knows what.

What are the solutions:

a. Allow Israel to make the first strike and so plunge the middle east into conflagration.

b. Watch the Iranians laugh as American acheives little at the UN exempt increase the proce of petrol for all of us and bankrupt the MoD in the process - which of course suits the Russians who are a net oil exporter.

c. Invade!!! - that of course would work in a country where the populus actually like the president.

d. Panic - and then join the rest of the EU and do nothing.

So what happens next, who knows really since neither side appears to want to back down and to be truthful the Yanks need the oil. I think Iran hold all the cards which is exactly why they are calling everyones bluff and getting very rich in the process.

Will China and Russia help? Who knows but its going to be an interesting summer.

:confused:

[Kim Il Jong]

Si, i guess you know what will happen!!

There will be no invasion of Iran. The willingness of the american general public to do this sort of thing has been severely damaged for a while. (Unless Hollywood can really come up with something mega-terrifying for the us public to believe in)

I also personally believe that the invasion of Iraq will go down in history as the most misdirected campaign of all time, ie, invade Iraq when all the WMDs are in Iran, what an utter f**k up. A colossal F**K up in fact. Monty Python springs to mind;. Use up all public support for war in a country that was already defeated, only to see their neighbour have all the cards in place DOH!

Anyway all the above is irrelevant, as is talk of a nuclear strike. All diplomatic cards will be played, Iran will be portrayed as the Pariah they are and the (very big, new, penetrating) bombs will flatten the Iranian effort.

Points to think about:

1. The us general public hates us casualties
2. The us general public loves bombing campaigns as does the white house.
3. The us has been investing in mega-large bunker-busters for some time now
4. Mohammed I'm-a-dinner-jacket is a f**king nutter and deserves his place in history.

Lets just sort it out soon!! pity we haven't got any vulcans any more...:ok:

[FJJP]

I most earnestly hope that the 'bomb-the-sh*t-out-of-Iran' brigade are firmly slapped into a dark, padded room by those in power with a few brain cells.

If a single bomb is dropped on Iran by any western power, the face of the western economies will radically change for the worse. Think about it.

The Iranians [and their sympathisers] will drive the price of oil through the roof by reducing production or restricting delivery. They can close the Strait of Hormuz by threats of [or actual] attacks on tankers, thus stopping the flow of oil. Alternative supply sources do not have the capacity to fill the void; what they do have will cost an arm and a leg and there will be an international bunfight as countries work to obtain supplies for themselves.

The cost of everything will rocket skywards, because oil is involved in all aspects of consumer life. Inflation will take off, and everyone in this country will be affected to some degree.

And the Iranians know it.

Still want to take the risk?

[WhiteOvies]

"those in power with a few brain cells."

Well I think we can safely say then that as far as the USA is concerned we're f***ed. :\

[Farrier]

We should be HELPING Iran with it's nuclear programme so as to prevent war. We send a contingent from the RAF over to help:

RAF: Boys we are here to help with your nuclear advancement programme . .

Iranians: Help? Us? How?

RAF: Well let's start with something simple - how are you manging your people who are working on the project?

Iranians: We are using pencil and paper!

RAF: No, no, no, what you really really need is what we call "JPA" that will help everything happen so smoothly - seemlessy you can manage work, people and everyone will be happy - and with all the savings you make you could try to buy a seat in your parliament; it's the system we use in the UK, in fact why not have our system as a token of goodwill? We can go back to your old faishioned "pencil and paper" model to prove how good your NEW system is!

Weeks later it will be reported that the nuclear programme will grind to a halt because people have left the programme in droves unhappy with not being able to log onto the systems to do their work . . .

End result - everone happy!:cool:

[South Bound]

Alternatively we could invite their development teams to work at DPA under an IPTL who once drove very close to a nuclear power station, but is qualified by virtue of his ability to reinterpret key performance indicators in such a way that everything would always be green even though the nuclear programme would then:

1. Be 25 years late (but that would be OK, because the military redefined their requirement by rejecting a solution that could explode at any minute; hence a return trip to the IAB "tut, tut, new requirement", extension to the original 50% date, sorted).
2. Be £200 squillion over budget (see above, but also the need to bolster British industry and accept ludicrous price hikes because it is politically less damaging than sending the cash cow to the abatoir and buying off the shelf).
3. Have limited capability at ISD, leading to a graduated introduction of capability over a timeframe of 30-40 years.

See absolutely no threat at all...:ok:

[AfricanSkies]

With higher oil prices, Big Oil benefits, no matter what happens to the economies. The Hawks in the White House couldn't give a stuff about the rest of the world, its all about whats good for them. Which means whats good for their shareholdings, primarily, and the US Dollar after that. And the dollar is heading closer to the day of reckoning too.

They did Iraq, didn't they?

Of course they are going to do Iran!:(

[brickhistory]

Ok, which is it to be? Do you want us to be isolationist and mind to strictly our own borders or as the only superpower, do we try and use our influence to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons?

Both positions are unrealistically simplistic, but if you're gonna Yank-bash, pick a side. Can't have it both ways.

Also, what would each of you do given the present world circumstances? Not a repeat of "shouldn't have gone in there to start with, etc., etc.," but what would YOU do if you were king for the day to solve the problem?

[BEagle]

Having read an article in the press recently about how the recent liberalisation in Iran is being repressed by ArmouredDinnerJacket's henchmen who are determined to keep their people in the stone age under the ludicrous theological restrictions of the 'religious police', I feel that he will soon be facing a much bigger threat from within when they finally get pi$$ed off enough.

Ironically (Iranically?), many Iranians only voted for ArmouredDinnerJacket because the alternative was too pro-US....:confused:

[Kim Il Jong]

FJJP,

Of course, you are absolutely correct, having a religeous zealot/xenophobic nut nuke Israel into oblivion is a much more preferable outcome for the world than some inflation and high oil prices. :*

Besides, i'm sure that the Bush family/ Texan oil cartel will happliy sell oil to the world at 2005 prices :hmm:

Whatever happens, there will be pain.

[Angrel]

hows this then? bomb all the f****** to the stone age and back, move in, pinch the oil, declare that we want the empire back, all commonwealth are now back under British rule, invade France (or bomb 'em too!) and kick the colonials in USA back into the sea?!?!? ;)

That'll be a good present for Her Majesty's 90th!!

BRING BACK THE EMPIRE!

:E :E :E

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Meanwhile, Iran had made thinly vieled threats to shipping in the Gulf and particularly the Strait of Hormuz, if any action (including economic sanctions) is taken.

From www.defense-aerospace.com

Iran's tests of its Fajr-3 missile, torpedoes, and other types of hardware during a week of war games from March 31 to April 6 have overshadowed the military exercises themselves. But the maneuvers, which are taking place in the Persian Gulf, the Straits of Hormuz, and the Sea of Oman, are significant because they highlight the role of naval power in Iran's military doctrine.

Iran's long coastline -- approximately 2,400 kilometers in the south -- affects its military outlook, Defense Minister Mustafa Mohammad Najjar said during an early January visit to the southern port city of Bandar Abbas.

"One of the strategies of the Defense Ministry is to promote our operation and combat forces' capabilities in the sea," he said. It would achieve this, he said, by building ships and submarines and through cooperation with the Gulf's littoral states. Najjar went on to say that the navy applies creative and innovative methods, uses asymmetric warfare, and depends on domestically-made products.

Later that same month, an Iranian military official stressed "denial of access" and said the United States is very vulnerable at sea. Mujtaba Zolnur, a high-ranking official at the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), continued: "This is another weak point of the enemy because we have certain methods for fighting in the sea so that war will spread into the Sea of Oman and the Indian Ocean," "Aftab-i Yazd" reported on January 23. "We will not let the enemy inside our borders."

General Yahya Rahim-Safavi, IRGC commander, said in summer 2005 that the plans of the corps' navy include confronting aggressors by using asymmetric warfare and by improving power- projection capabilities, "Siyasat-i Ruz" and "Kayhan" reported on June 8.

Protecting Bases And Oil Fields

A total of 38,000 men serve in Iran's conventional navy and the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps navy, and these forces are believed to have a significant capacity for regular and asymmetric naval warfare.

Rahim-Safavi added that the navy wants to improve its missile systems and its surveillance capabilities, and it wants to strengthen its defense of Persian Gulf islands.

The need to protect bases and oil facilities in the Persian Gulf makes "area denial" through mine warfare a major aspect of Iranian naval doctrine. Mines were used during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War. Today, Iran has three to five ships with minesweeping and mine-laying capabilities, and many of its smaller vessels can lay mines. Aircraft can drop mines, too.

Tehran has occasionally threatened to use mines to block the Straits of Hormuz, described by the U.S.'s Energy Information Administration as "By far the world's most important oil choke point." In February 2005 congressional testimony, the Defense Intelligence Agency director, Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby, addressed this possibility by saying that Iran would rely on a "layered strategy" that uses naval, air, and some ground forces to "briefly" close the straits. Iran's purchase of North Korean fast-attack craft and midget submarines improved this capability, he said.

Missiles are important for "area denial" as well. Iran compensates for limited air power and surface-vessel capabilities with an emphasis on anti-ship missiles. Four of these systems were obtained from China -- the long-range Seersucker missile, as well as the CS-801, CS-801K, and CS-802 anti-ship missiles. There are reports that Iran has purchased Ukrainian anti-ship missiles. Most commercial shipping is within range of missiles based on Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf.

In an effort to limit hostile air power in the region, Iran might target air bases to its south, or it could try to strike aircraft carriers outside the gulf. Submarines could be used for the latter assignment, and the port of Chah Bahar on the Sea of Oman is being modified to serve the kilo-class submarines Iran purchased from Russia in the 1990s.

As the Persian Gulf war games continued and Iran demonstrated new types of equipment, Tehran sought to reassure the international community of its benign intentions. Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki said on April 4 that the country's military doctrine is essentially defensive, IRNA reported.

[brickhistory]

hows this then? bomb all the f****** to the stone age and back, move in, pinch the oil, declare that we want the empire back, all commonwealth are now back under British rule, invade France (or bomb 'em too!) and kick the colonials in USA back into the sea?!?!? ;)

That'll be a good present for Her Majesty's 90th!!

BRING BACK THE EMPIRE!

:E :E :E

Actually, sound like a good starting point.

To show good faith in negotiations, we'll agree to your ownership of the original 13 colonies. However, we'd like to use the current boundaries vs the 1700s lines. We will also throw in California, but you have to keep everyone that is currently there.

Deal?

[BEagle]

Lord no, that'd mean we'd have to take West Coast....

[West Coast]

Iffin I showed up, the beer would have to get a lot colder than its served now.