IRAN/RUSSIA/CHINA and the Coming World War

What worries me is that, having studied history, the patterns I saw is that the one thing that brings down EVERY empire eventually is arrogance. And politicians/leaders these days have way too much of it. Wouldn't bother me so much, but with weapons technology what it is these days, the 'empire' on its way out can take quite a few others with them.

 

I posted this in another thread but it fits well here also;

http://www.cosmicconservative.com/weblog/?p=10033

He predicts either Israel attacking Iran or Iran attacking Israel within the next 2 to 3 months.

 

This is all the excuse the Kenyan will need to cancel the elections so he can help the U.S. during this trying time. There will be riots...then martial law...then ... well, you know the rest.

 

Let's get ready to... turn everything into rubble.

 

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/author/hudson/

I heard this guy on infowars. He was a great contrast to Alex Jones...who is sometimes a little too...passionate let's say...about what may or may not be going on. What's troubling is they agree on a lot of points, with plenty of facts to back it all up.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

These days, even the so called experts on the geopolitical situation in the Middle East are doing little better than making what we used to call WAGs (Wild A**ed Guesses). There are so many variables in motion right now, that saying anything with assurance, is an iffy proposition.

Once upon a time, the actions of Egypt would have been easy to predict. Once upon a time, the actions of Libya would have been easy to predict. Once upon a time, the actions of Syria and Iraq would have been easy to predict. That is not the case any longer. Now, rather than dealing with the very predictable dictators of each of these countries, we have to deal with nations which are redefining themselves as various forms of democracies, and as has been pointed out - democracy is messy.

Two of the Middle Eastern countries which currently most resemble themselves of ten years ago are the primary protagonist and the antagonist in this little drama - Iran and Israel. As I am a firm believer in the adage that the best way to determine someone's future actions is to examine their past actions, I believe that there are a couple of things which can be said with some certainty concerning Iran and Israel's future actions.

1) Israel will act to protect their interests, in a direct manner, at a time and in a manner of their own choosing. If they believe that Iran is moving to pose an existential threat to the survival of their nation, they will strike with as much force as they deem necessary to eliminate the threat. They will not be indefinitely swayed by international opinion, though they have shown themselves (in 1982 in Lebanon, and in 1991 vis a vis Iraqi Scud missiles) amenable to US suggestions of temporary forbearance. Israel is willing to take a big gamble in order to secure a big win. Consider the bombing of the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor, in 1981; and the bombing of the Syrian reactor in Deir Az Zor, in 2007. I don't think we have to look any further for a precedent.

2) Iran desires to be not only a regional player, but they demand to be a regional power. They want respect, and they are willing to take short cuts to get that respect; hence, the nuclear weapons program. Iran was once the major influence in the Persian Gulf area, but since the fall of the Shah, they have been a third world backwater, in spite of their oil wealth. There is a desire on the part of the Iranian religious leaders to validate the revolution of 1979/80. The revolution succeeded in expelling the Shah, and American and British influence, but accomplished very little more than that. The people can't definitively say that they are better off than they would have been had the Shah remained in power. They certainly can say that Iran does not have the prestige it once enjoyed on the world stage, and that their future is not a particularly bright one. The leaders of Iran's theocracy believe that if they can once again make the region, and the world, look at them with some measure of respect, the aims of the revolution will be validated, and the mind of the populace will turn from its current Western trajectory, back to good old conservative Iranian/Muslim values, and remain under the thumb of the Mullahs.

Syria is a huge question mark currently. Syria is the only major Arab nation with which Iran has had a good relationship, and right now, Syria is in turmoil. The Iranian position within the region will be seriously weakened, and Iran will be even further ostracized, if the Syrian revolution succeeds. The Alawite dictatorship (or autocracy) of Syria has been a strong ally of Iran over the past twenty years; partly because the Syrian Alawites feel themselves to also be on the fringe of a Sunni dominated Middle East. They more easily identify with Shi'ites than with Sunnis. The revolutionary movement within Syria is strongly Sunni. They can be expected to reject the relationship that Assad has built with Iran, should they come to power.

Israel, likewise, has to keep an eye on Syria. They know full well that a strike on Iran will probably result in a major sh*tstorm, that will certainly affect the Persian Gulf, and will quite probably spread to the general area of the Middle East and beyond. They need to feel safe at home before they light the match to the conflagration that will quite probably ensue. Syria has chemical and biological weapons. Over half the Jewish population of Israel lives within twelve miles of Tel Aviv. They can't afford to let someone get in a lucky punch; it could easily be a knockout blow.

One way for the hard pressed Syrian regime to refocus the attention of the rebel forces would be to attack Israel. It didn't work for Saddam in '91 but, at this point, Assad may figure he has little to lose. Also, if the rebels succeed in throwing Assad out, they will find themselves in possession of some serious weapons of mass destruction. The violence of popular revolutions can quickly spread beyond the borders of their nation, as rival leaders jockey for power and respect.

Israeli leaders may believe that Iran poses such an immediate threat that action is required, regardless of possible consequences. Maybe they will wait to see how things play out in Syria first. Who is to say? I doubt if even they know. One thing they do know - they can't afford to be wrong.

 

The most simple and effective way out is for Iran to have a massive nuke "accident". That way no military action is needed, no one is to blame, and it would be their fault. All the scientists would be taken out, all the facilities, and if the wind was blowing right lots of militants with it.

 

Maybe instead of making the computers play AC/DC they should try to make them do a Chernobyl/Fukushima ?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/iran-...-experts-say/2012/07/26/gJQAQuFUCX_story.html

Excerpts:
Iran is rapidly gaining new capabilities to strike at U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf, amassing an arsenal of sophisticated anti-ship missiles while expanding its fleet of fast-attack boats and submarines, U.S. and Middle Eastern analysts say.

The new systems, many of them developed with foreign assistance, are giving Iran’s commanders new confidence that they could quickly damage or destroy U.S. ships if hostilities erupt, the officials say.

Although U.S. Navy officials are convinced that they would prevail in a fight, Iran’s advances have fueled concerns about U.S. vulnerabilities during the opening hours of a conflict in the gulf.

Increasingly accurate short-range missiles — combined with Iran’s use of “swarm” tactics involving hundreds of heavily armed patrol boats — could strain the defensive capabilities of even the most modern U.S. ships, current and former military analysts say.

In recent weeks, as nuclear talks with world powers have faltered and tensions have risen, Iran has repeated threats to shut down shipping in the oil-rich gulf region. Its leaders also have warned of massive retaliation for any attacks on its nuclear facilities, which the United States believes are civilian covers for an Iranian drive to acquire a nuclear-weapons capability.
…….
The likelihood that Iran would risk an all-out attack on a vastly superior U.S. fleet is judged to be small. But Iranian leaders could decide to launch a limited strike if Israel or the United States bombed the country’s nuclear facilities. Analysts also cautioned that a conflict could be sparked by an Iranian attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz — the narrow passage through which about 20 percent of the world’s oil passes from the Persian Gulf into open seas — in retaliation for international economic sanctions.
……
Iran’s increased power to retaliate has led some military experts to question the wisdom of deploying aircraft carriers and other expensive warships to the gulf if a conflict appears imminent.

A 2009 study prepared for the Naval War College warns of Iran’s increasing ability to “execute a massive naval ambush” in the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway dotted with small islands and inlets and perfectly suited for the kind of asymmetric warfare preferred by Iran’s commanders.

“If the U.S. chooses to station warships in the Strait of Hormuz during the buildup to conflict, it cedes the decision of when to fight and allows the fight to begin in the most advantageous place for Iran,” wrote the study’s author, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Colin Boynton. “This could lead to a devastating first salvo on U.S. Navy warships, which would most likely be operating under restrictive rules of engagement.”
…….
Modern U.S. warships are equipped with multiple defense systems, such as the ship-based Aegis missile shield. But Iran has sought to neutralize the U.S. technological advantage by honing an ability to strike from multiple directions at once. The emerging strategy relies not only on mobile missile launchers but also on new mini-submarines, helicopters and hundreds of heavily armed small boats known as fast-attack craft.

These highly maneuverable small boats, some barely as long as a subway car, have become a cornerstone of Iran’s strategy for defending the gulf against a much larger adversary. The vessels can rapidly deploy Iran’s estimated 2,000 anti-ship mines or mass in groups to strike large warships from multiple sides at once, like a cloud of wasps attacking much larger prey.

A Middle Eastern intelligence official who helps coordinate strategy for the gulf with U.S. counterparts said some Navy ships could find themselves in a “360-degree threat environment,” simultaneously in the cross hairs of adversaries on land, in the air, at sea and even underwater.
……
U.S. forces would probably recover quickly from any early losses, but Iranian leaders could claim a psychological victory if the world’s media carried images of burning U.S. warships in the gulf.

 

If they do attack us, a few MOABs dropped on Tehran's government buildings and ports might dissuade further attacks. Don't need the nukes just yet......

 

They are forming the caliphate as 0bama is stewing in his failures.

On 0bama's watch, we began stupidly instigating, meddling, then stood by watching as a result radical Islam is taking over the Middle East.

Egypt invested their dollars in a conventional military with chemical weapons. Syria has Saddam's toys and dot gov cannot admit it because if they do then Bush was right. Iran has biologicals, chemical and nuclear. Pakistan has nuclear and barely stable. The Muslim Brotherhood gained 17 seats Libya's General National Assembly, etc. The Caliphate will be a powerful military alliance when it is formed. America is the world's "heavy lifters." As a result, we own the conventional battlefield and all that is left is weapons of mass destruction or disruption.

0bama threw Israel under the bus. Many hold a grudge against Israel for the attack on the USS Liberty as they drive German or Japanese vehicles.

To avoid another WWI and none of our business is what precipitated WWII. Will avoiding another Vietnam and none of our business precipitate WWIII? As "they" are already taking over other nations, some will say baloney WWIII already began and we have chosen not to notice. An interesting historical fact about war is it doesn't matter what "we" think as the other guy will make it "our" business by attacking.

 

" Many hold a grudge against Israel for the attack on the USS Liberty as they drive German or Japanese vehicles."

One big difference, we beat the snot out of Germany and Japan for their sneak attacks.

 

So they are forgiven for killing millions because we kicked their arse?

If it helps, radical Islam has been killing Israelis for decades as we watch.

We are losing nations to radical Islam, There is a potential for WW III here, a war which includes short range nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

 

The above method as well as anti swarm arms to combat attack boats would send a distinct message.

The use of selective bomblets work well also as do keyed (to a sound group) mines delivered by air, water or land based. Mining of harbors and other access points near US Operations is a given.

The area of Operation we are discussing is not like the South Pacific and our use of PT Boats in WW2. With no place to hide and no place to rearm and refuel after real hostilities break out, the area will not support long term small boat actions.

Any mother ships or tenders should be destroyed as the first wave of Iranian Fast Boats attack, leaving the Fast Boats with no support and the crews with no place to return.

The fast boats that Iran now has, stupidly sold by others and exported to Iran, are in no way a stealth craft. They are easy to track and simple to kill with land based, air based or water based US craft. Think Warthogs and Blackhawks. Of course add SEALs to any other needs to lock them in their homes for a wiping up process.

Use of AWACs to track their home ports and a combined US force operation that includes backtracking the fast boats to their ports and an automatic bombing of each boat's home track port will quickly end most threats.

Keep the big ships home and have an open season on all small fast boats as well as other power craft.

With good planning we should be able to observe the Iraian Navy with the use of Glass Bottom Tour Boats.

YMMV

 

1) We won that war and made the survivors our allies.

2) I am not particularly fond of Israel, even if they had not attacked a WELL marked US Navy ship in international waters.
I despise radical Islamists, the worst of a sick cult.
Ever since I watched the Palestinians cheering the deaths of the people in the Twin Towers I could not possibly care what happens to them.

3) Since there is nothing I can do to stop this war, all I will do is prepare for the aftermath.

 

1) The USSR and China who were a couple of our vital Allies became our enemies. Applying "made the survivors our allies" to East and West Germany points out a potential flaw in your theory.

2) No matter which war or conflict is being discussed, a fondness or a lack thereof has nothing to do with having a common goal to kill the common enemy of the moment. We have friendly fire incidents where one "WELL marked" US asset is destroyed by nother "WELL marked" US asset(s). Currently, Israelis kill terrorists which makes them a friend.

3) Correct, as it requires a "we," none of us can do anything. This is why one of the few legitimate Constitutional purposes for the Fed is international affairs to "speak" as one voice for all the States. This is also why Jefferson protected our interests and the Marines earned "to the shores of Tripoli."

From the 1950s to the 1980s, US Policy adopted the Domino Theory or if one nation falls to "insert bad guys name;" more in the region will follow. Since Korea and Vietnam, proponents of the Domino Theory claim it worked because other nations in the region did not fall to communism. Those who disagree with the Domino Theory say it did not have any effect. As more nations are falling to fundamentalist Islam we may see which side of the Domino Theory debate is correct.