Rouhani warns: ‘War with Iran is the mother of all wars’

If war erupts between Iran and the US, it will likely follow a pattern of escalating tit-for-tat events. Not a major attack by either side on the other side. The most likely scenario will be one where Iran uses the legal measures available to it and begin regulating commerce through the Strait of Hormuz, especially as it pertains to ships carrying out commerce with the US - something I strongly advocate. In this scenario, the US reacts by trying to ignore the regulations imposed by Iran and the situation escalates from there to a shooting war. Even then, the war would initially be limited in its scope: neither side will try to expand the theater of war intentionally. The US would focus on attacking Iranian military targets at first, while Iran would mainly focus on attacking American naval, military and bases in the Persian Gulf. Eventually, however, depending on who is gaining more from this cycle, things escalate a notch and then another notch, before those limitations give away to a fight that becomes harder to control or predict.

What happens as a result of this dynamic isn't pretty for either. While, short of an invasion, the only US hope of bringing an end to the war will be to cow Iran's government to accepting a ceasefire on American terms, there is admittedly a 50/50 chance that at some point the Iranian government would bow to its instinct of self-preservation and accept such a ceasefire. In that case, if Iran does accept a ceasefire, the outcome is really bad for Iran and not very good for the US either. I wouldn't want this scenario at all. This would be the nightmare scenario for Iran but still a terrible outcome for the US as well. It is, incidentally, basically the scenario that a former Deputy Director of the CIA and an American admiral who served as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have outlined as being the most likely one in trying to explain nonetheless why war with Iran would be a terrible idea. See "Frightening Reality of a War with Iran".

But if Iran refuses to bow, and continues the fight, eventually the US will have to invade Iran -- or to find a save facing way to exit the fight altogether. To invade Iran, the US would have to reinstate the draft and basically try to fight the war all the way to Tehran and occupy the country. If this is what happens, I would consider it better than being in a situation where the US is basically, and perpetually, trying to strangulate Iran and its economy. Even if the US defeats Iran at the end, at least we will have a situation where the war with Iran comes to a real end. Alternatively, if the US finds a face saving exit at any point in the war, that will also mean that it will have finally realized that waging the war it has been waging on Iran for the past 40 years isn't the right way either. That would be a very costly victory for Iran, but all the same, it will allow Iran to have hopes of a much better future.

Despite the fact that I realize that the nightmare situation for Iran (which isn't what you imagine but does somewhat correspond to what is mentioned in the article I cited above) is quite possible, I still think that Iran should risk it given the fact that it is being given no real options by the US. The idea that Iran should sit and do nothing while it is embargoed, sanctioned, and its people are deprived of having a hopeful future, until America's agenda of causing an "implosion" in Iran, succeeds is the biggest nightmare scenario in my eyes. But, of course, there is always the outside chance that if Iran pushes things to the level I like it to push things, there will be sane voices in America who will look at things and say: enough is enough. Lets find an honorable and just deal with Iran and stop this fight before it starts.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ar-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy

'Clean Break' can be seen as an additional motivation.

I never said anything of the sort. It was obvious from the previous Gulf war that the US would win. I do not even remember anyone saying that. I suspect you are just making it up. Who on earth are 'you guys' anyway. American public was in favour of the Iraq war. The UK public were not and had the biggest march in British history against it. The reason for the difference was probably because our press was still giving some genuine news. A member of our intelligence told someone working at the BBC that they were being forced to produce fake 'intelligence', That man is now dead. The BBC is now a pawn.

You are living in the land of fairy tales, both with how you remember discussion about the Iraq war and how you are now imagining Iran. You are not alone in expressing the unjustified arrogance you have. It may well be the undoing of the USA.

 

I have heard the US sanctions called an act of war.

 

Especially the way the US is pursuing its sanctions policy against Iran, it is waging a war with Iran. It is one thing to limit or refuse trade with another country. It is entirely a different thing to actively and openly seek to bring down another nation's economy, forcing this policy on everyone else, while at the same time undertaking a host of other measures which each -- individually -- would also be considered hostile and aggressive but collectively are simply a war that is being waged already.

 

Do you remember Operation Mass Appeal that was selling the notion of war with Iraq to the British people?

 

Nope. Have never heard of it. We were hearing on our tv's that Iraq was on the verge of creating WMD's which could reach Britain in 45 minutes and that Al Qaeda were working with Saddam. Both were known to be false in the UK before the attack.

By the way Margo welcome back. I hope you are keeping well.

 

Thanks. I'm well.

Here's a link to information about Operation Mass Appeal which began in 1998..

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/operation-mass-appeal.441595/

 

Are you the same Margot that used to post all sorts of things in defense of the Saudi royals and their practices? The one who was proud of being on friendly terms with a few of them? Out of curiosity: would you like to have lunch or dinner with Mohammad Bin Salman? Or do you need to check the menu to make sure the plate you are being served isn't some body parts left from Jamal Khasshogi?

p.s.
My poor attempt at humor aside, I am actually happy to hear from you again. I just hope you will have had time to reconsider some of your past defense of the Wahhabi kingdom. Certainly, your position and understanding when it comes to certain issues like the forces behind the invasion of Iraq is a worthwhile voice to add to the discussions here.

 

Well, it wasn't funny, but you let it stand.

 

Hang on. The issue was that Iraq HAD WMD'S AND HAD BEEN USING THEM.
WMD's include nuclear, biological and chemica.
Hussein had his nuclear ambitions largely ended to Israel.
He was working on the biological
He claimed he tipped his chemical weapons out in the desert "somewhere".
Even Russia believed he still had WMD's. I believed the claim - why should
I have not? There were many dead Kurds and Iranians gassed to death. It's
called in Leftist circles the "precautionary principle."

 

I haven't looked into that which would suggest Blair was thinking about enticing the British Public into war with Iraq prior to 9/11. It is interesting that he speaks of being asked to make more 'sexy' information. The Intelligence man I was speaking about, David Kelly said they were asked to 'sex up' information to make a case for war against Iraq prior to the 2003 war. I can remember that our Intelligence said Iraq was minimal danger. Iran was militarily much more of a danger. During the build up to the Iraq war Kelly spoke to Andre Gillingham of the BBC and this became public. David Kelly went and spoke about this to the enquiry we had on the Iraq war and committed suicide or was murdered shortly after. There are of course videos of Netanyhu telling US Congress that Iraq had Nukes.

 

Sorry, Iranian Monitor... the tone of your reply here --"I am actually happy to hear from you again. I just hope you will have had time to reconsider ..." -- is WAY out of line with how we argue in America.

Okay, I know you're a furriner, but you really should respect our customs. And not just because they're OUR customs, but because we're the greatest, most advanced nation in the world .. the fount of civilization... and anyway, where are you from, some little place most of us couldn't find on the map, and why should we .. didn't we invade you a few years ago to teach you democracy? .. a country where you probably had to be taught to read and write by our missionaries ... Okay, never mind. Just try to learn from us.

Let me see if I can show you an example of how you should have replied: now that first paragraph was excellent! Wonderful sarcasm. If you had just stopped right there ... or maybe gone on to post a picture of burned Yemeni children, and invited her to have a second helping ...

Anyway, I am sure you will learn. So many good examples of proper debating style here to study.

 

This is an example of how language is twisted and mis-used.
The possibly-legitimate fear that Americans and British people could have had, was if Saddam Hussein was working on nuclear weapons with a delivery system. He hated us, could be irrational, and might consider vaporizing London worth it, to get a place in the history book. A weapon of mass destruction.

Of course, only conscienceless savages could detonate a nuclear weapon over a city, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, but he was one.

But poison gas .... that's simply not in the picture as a 'weapon of mass destruction'.

Biological weapons are something else ... not just because in principle they could kill so many, but because it might be able to release them in such a way that their origin is unknown. We shouldn't kid ourselves about the dangers here, especially since they are the sort of weapons, which nuclear ones are not, that a wealthy, long-term-thinking terrorist organization could plausibly develop, and without huge expense and with only a few dozen dedicated biologists.

But ...as one neo-con admitted frankly later, the 'WMD' business was just a pretext for the invasion. The real aim was to 'drain the swamp' which bred terrorists. This is not wrong, but the problem is, the swamp analogy is a poor one. These semi-backward/semi-advanced nations, with all kinds of tribal and confessional divisions, are far more complex than a 'swamp' (a 'swamp' in popular usage, a real swamp is probably a very complex eco-system).

We've got to be far more sophisticated in how we go about 'draining' these lands -- the 'draining' is the wrong metaphor anyway -- they must be transformed, from the inside. As for the 'WMD' or pseudo-WMD their leaders might develop, we'll just have to treat them like the WMD in the hands of Mr Kim, the Chinese, the Russians, the Pakistanis, the Indians.... hope and pray their leaders understand that if they do use them against us, or look like going to, we will glaze them over.

 

Then you have nothing to worry about and Iran will be safe to do whatever it is Iran is doing.

 

I admitted it was probably poor humor, but you get my point hopefully. Or, maybe not.

 

Terrorist groups in Yemen were attacking Saudi Arabia for several years before the war started and before the al Houthis overthrew the government. Yemen has always been poor and pretty lawless outside the major cities with lots of kidnapping for ransom as far back as 2000.

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States have provided humanitarian aid to Yemen for more than 40 years. They have also built hospitals, clinics, schools and colleges.

IMO.. It would be helpful if Iran would use their influence to quell the conflicts associated with HAMAS, Hezbollah an the Al Houthis.

The Straits of Hormuz and Bab al Mandab must remain open to shipping.

 

How did you reach that conclusion from what I posted? I have plenty to worry about as the options before Iran are a choice between bad and worse. Just because the US policies on the issue won't accomplish anything for the US, and represent policies that certainly don't advance America's interests even if they might advance those of some other states, doesn't make these policies any less worrisome or harmful.

 

You have to admit Margot that the way to do that was that the US did not give up on the Iran deal. I have heard Iran is unlikely to shut them unless the US does something like make it impossible for them to sell their oil!

 

Yes, I think the Iran deal left them an out.. Trump has taken that away. There was a famous general who said "when you surround and enemy, always leave them a way out"..

 

Must be a common saying with good reason. I heard it was an old saying in Africa.

 

Trump doesn't know.. He isn't smart or well-educated. He's just an arrogant, unschooled bully. Has been since he was a kid.

 

Easily. If Iran does not directly attack American interests and kill Americans, then the regional conflict will remain just that - the regional conflict with skirmishes here n there and will not turn into a mother of all battles. Iran will continue to exist.

 

Your understanding of Trump is unassailable, but to pretend it is just Trump isn't going to fly. Indeed, have you heard of the "4 Bs", or the "B team", in Iran's foreign minister's conception of who is behind the policies being pursued by the US: Benjamin Netanyahu, Mohammad Bin Salman, John Bolton, and Mohammad Bin Zayed.

 

I think Trump is just in it to feel powerful re his narcissism. I seem to remember that before he got Jewish and Christian Zionist funders he had no intention on taking the stand he has done re Israel. Now it has got to the point that Israel has a very right wing army, the people of Israel are being told not to be scared of voting right wing as the US will let them do anything and they apparently are intending on taking over the West Bank without calling it annexation. They hope to be able to destroy the spirit of the Palestinian people. That or death.

So it was the Israeli's and the Christian Zionists who wanted Trump to renege on the JCPOA. One advantage it seems to be giving them is papers keeping quiet about what Israel is up to.

He also apparently believed that having reneged the deal and reimposing sanctions on Iran, offering to speak to Iran would have them running.

 

Netayanhu and Bolton certainly do want war.

Salman and Zayed don't. Iran gives the Emirates fits.. The Shah seized 3 Gulf Islands from the UAE years ago.

The Saudis want peace.. They have NEVER had any ambitions re: Iran. Iran should concentrate on developing their country and leave the neighbors in peace.