Abarmard
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Analysis: War With Iran
29-Dec-2011
Focusing on events alone based on personal political ideologies causes misinformation in information gathering procedure. Rather than looking at events in one point in time, or personal political beliefs one should look at the objective of each parties involved in any scenarios.
The US objective at this point in time is not to resort to military conflict but to weaken the Iranian political position. To do that, military can be a possible solution once other means have been exercised without desired results. Currently the economic isolation to bankrupt the Iranian system is the process of this project. Iran’s overall objective has been put on hold to answer or react to these processes along the way. Time plays an important factor in this project and Iran’s focus has been to divert the processes to gain time, and at times change the momentum of this flow.
Unlike many arguments that US military can destroy Iranian “threat”, Iran’s objective is not to fight head to head with US. That would be foolish and the winner in such conflict is clear. What Iran is trying to do is to create uncertainties that directly influence the economic livelihood of its enemies. Hence the focus of Iranian military has been to create a conflict that disrupts the normal economic flow of nations, based on energy. Any military strategies will tell you that closing the Strait of Hormuz is not sustainable for Iranian military yet the economic disrupt will take months to clear. It can certainly take longer if the planning is done in concise calculated processes based on Iranian strength.
With sanctions in place, Iran has been concentrating on its strengths rather than weaknesses. To Iran, the bombing and destroying infrastructure of the country without reaching an objective is winning this “war”. Iran will gain in many ways if the objective is not reached. The assumptions to reach this objective based on processes could be:
1- The Iranian system will collapse: Some analysts believe that the population would line behind the enemy’s objective to further weaken the system. Other analysts believe the opposite is true. The historical lesson tells us that people in old countries such as Iran will forget their system’s flaws and line behind their regime to defend against the aggressor. No certainty of how a complex society will react in case on a war generates more possibilities or confusion than answers. Regardless, Iran in this war game will have a home game advantage. Similar to Afghanistan war, the Iranian forces will resort to hit and run tactic with more sophisticated weapons and hide behind the population. The US will have to make a choice to hit Iranian cities or leave them. In either case, the US objective will be diverted and the war goes to nowhere. All these can change if the population rises against the system. Knowing Iran, and all cities and villages in the country, I would assume this to be very unlikely.
2- Economic blockade will collapse Iranian system: To change this belief, Iran has demonstrated that it will resort to force and change the game of slow death to sudden change of tactics. The recent events are in line with this strategy. By stopping the ships passing through Strait of Hormuz, Iran forces US fifth fleet to engage with Iranian military. Most probably this will end with war. If the process of production of sanction is to block Iranian wealth, Iran will have nothing to lose and to create a possibility of actually come out a winner. Time is the key in this scenario. If Iran is bombed to dust, but has enough to sustain the uncertainty of energy shipment, the public opinion and Western pressure will change the landscape dramatically. West might be willing to pay the extra price for goods and services or their gas pumps, but not for a long period of time. Keep in mind that countries such as Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, and India to name a few are more capable of handling poverty and accept their economic misfortune than most Western societies. One possible reason is that war for the West is not in their soil and they do not see it as necessary but an option. Iran views this very differently.
3- Russia and China will not lose their alliances with the West for a country like Iran: This is a very interesting assumption. After Libya, Russia lost its base in that country. The only other base in the region that Russia has today is Syria. One can conclude, based on current events that Russia will not change its position and will continue on its short-term interests. However one can also assume that time is the key. Russia has not allowed NATO forces to enter Syria and has been very active to keep its strategic position in Syria. Therefore, Russia has a reason to at least indirectly be pro-Iranian cause. China also wants the cake and eats it too. Meaning China wants to keep its economic trade with the West and US while having the possibility of future energy access without permission from the West.
Here is what makes the strategy even more complicated. China and US will not change their economic trade behavior but may engage indirectly against one another. Since both need each other similarly and own each other’s wealth, they may put that aside and allow the game to be mutually exclusive. Iran then may take advantage of this situation and indirectly gain strategic support from China that may influence the decision of continuation of a war to reach the objective.
Many other factors can be played in this scenario but certainly these are the first series of assumptions in this conflict. In summary, if the population will rise against the Iranian system, then the situation is clear otherwise the US objective will not succeed and Iranian system will survive well over its estimated timeline. In a case, after the war is over, Iran will be semi destroyed but will gain respect and momentum while the opposite is true for the US. The shrinking US footprints in the region will continue.
The solution is simple. Keep in mind that we are not speaking about right or wrong, or political ideologies of individuals. The solution is what President Obama had promised during his election to talk to Iran and open a diplomatic channel. Show with actions not force, that they are willing to deal with Iran as a legitimate system. With this, US can benefit three ways:
1-Iranians will gain more access to wealth and will be able to deal with their system’s shortcomings without constant external threats.
2- Iranian system with its vast corruption cannot blame any other country
3-US can focus on Iranian Human Rights violations and play the good guy who is on the side of the Iranians.
Above three points are what Iranian system doesn’t want, and that is exactly what US should do. Beyond those points, the US is playing in Iranian system’s hand and I believe US’ objective will not be reached.
| Recently by Abarmard | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
خواست | - | Oct 23, 2012 |
پیوند ساقه ها | 5 | Jul 26, 2012 |
رويای پرواز | 14 | Jan 24, 2012 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Those who think Iraq is
by vildemose on Fri Dec 30, 2011 07:40 AM PSTThose who think Iraq is in the pocket of Iran: Please stop mindless bragging.
Turkey has more than 800 large contracts with Iraq, Iran less than 200...follow the money.
//www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32025.pdf
A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.--Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
If Iran gets a nuke, the US
by BacheShirazi on Fri Dec 30, 2011 06:24 AM PSTIf Iran gets a nuke, the US will give both nukes to Iraq, along with
the same kind of anti-ballistic missile defense system that Turkey has.
There is no way the U.S would give nukes to Iraq. First of all Iraq is in Iran's pocket. Regarding Saudi arabia they might put Saudi Arabia under the U.S nuclear umbrella if Iran was to get the bomb. But there is no way the U.S would ever give a place like Saudi Arabia the nuke.
The current policy
by hirre on Fri Dec 30, 2011 02:51 AM PSTThe current policy is "starvation" through sanctions. The US must find a way to starve Iran even more and make it clearly attack the US or any other country in the region first. Closing the strait of hormuz is a good opportunity for the west, but the iranians (smart as they are), will not go for it because of the consequenses. But you could imagine how happy the commanders were if Iran had taken that path...
If Iran is to be the first striker in any situation (which is what the west wants) the media will show the whole world that Iran is the "bad guy" and military attacks will automatically become legitimate through law. When you have this situation no great super power like Russia & China will do anything because they will know Iran attacked first, hence they will not lose face protecting a terrorist state. You will see them protesting in the UN to end the situation, but they will not lift a finger, because it would damage them in the long and short term...
What you see during these days are positive smart actions by the US and the rest of the world, why? Because:
1. It cripples the economy making the people less happy and more likely to start protests and revolutions.
2. It makes the IR more aggressive and more willing to do a stupid move (which it wouldn't do in normal cases). This is all that is needed for the west to justify an attack. Latest stupid moves were attacking the UK embassy, threatening to close the strait and so on...
Either 1 or 2 will be in favour for the west. So basically Iran is a ticking bomb where sanctions lowers the time to explosion and Iran's constant attempts to fix its economy gives it a couple of more months before exploding...
The next year the US will be very occupied with the elections. Both Iran and the US will try to lay low 2012. Interesting things will occur 2013, if Obama is the president he might try to engage Iran even further. But if a republican (except Ron Paul) is elected, things might even heat up more...
The US role will not
by vildemose on Thu Dec 29, 2011 09:01 PM PSTThe US role will not include boots on the ground, but will include a lot of nudging behind the scenes.
The US will not take public credit for the outcome, in whole or in part.
A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.--Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
Obama Kool-aide is Sooo..2008 that even Obama won't buy it.
by bushtheliberator on Thu Dec 29, 2011 08:46 PM PSTAbarmard : "that they (USA) are willing to deal with Iran as a ligitimate system."
If the IRI were a " Ligitimate system " we wouldn't have these problems.The USA should deal with the IRI as #2 in the Axis of Evil , and maintain a steady policy of regime change.
The Libyans should award President Obama the first "O-Bomba Prize" for bombing their enemies.It will look good on the mantle next to his Peace Prize.; and he earned it.
Usual basij/pasdar cockiness
by vildemose on Thu Dec 29, 2011 07:41 PM PSTLOL, Abarmard you are delusional if you think IRI can close the strait of hormuz for one minute...greed and avarice of the unscrupulous few pasdar/basiji and their tribe has made their brain and their decision making impaired to the point of no return.
Enough empty boasting and testostrone-driven lust for destruction.
A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.--Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
Ridiculous lie
by AMIR1973 on Thu Dec 29, 2011 06:52 PM PSTOtherwise Human Rights in Syria or Iran is no worse than any other nations in that region.
IRI is the Number 1 executioner in the world per capita. In absolute terms, ony China executes more people, and China has almost 20 times IRI's population. The IRI executed more people in the year 1979 alone than the Shah's regime did from 1941-1978. And that doesn't even include the bloodiest years of the IRI -- which is far and away the most deadly regime in recent Iranian history. The IRI uses stoning, flogging, eye gouging, and limb chopping as punishments.
Over 6,000 Syrians have been killed since the uprising against the regime started last March. That makes the Syrian uprising far, far bloodier and deadlier than other uprisings in the Arab world (e.g. Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain).
Some people are absolutely incapable of telling the truth. One such type are the propagandists of the Islamist terrorist regime who use the freedom of speech provided in democratic societies to vomit up lies and false propaganda in defense of an Islamist terrorist regime that is the Number 1 killer, rapist, and torturer of Iranian men, women, and children.
You need to change your name..
by darius on Thu Dec 29, 2011 03:26 PM PSTAbarmard
For some Iranian the only way your opinion become credible is that you change your name to Fikelstein, scwartz , Levi some thing of that nature.
Then you will here bah bah bah and chah chah.
Mr. Bahmani your post is contradictory
by Abarmard on Thu Dec 29, 2011 03:18 PM PSTTo quickly respond wihtout going too much in to details, the bets that you have posted doesn't match "ever" that you have mentioned. The analysis is based on "what if" and possibilities. If you believe in any ratios then you are agreeing to possibilities.
I too agree that US is not "currently" looking to engage in a war and reasoning is given in this piece. The issue here is if one is cornered and might do actions that may open other possibilities.
Keep in mind that logic doesn't play in all political games. Iraq and Afghanistan are good examples of that.
Iran may act to challenge US reaction if Iran is pushed far enough. Also as mentioned, objective plays a big role in this scenario. If US objective is to overthrow the Islamic Republic, then the system might answer in disruptive way, which is very possible.
The Nuclear issue is only one excuse of West's focus but not all, and I do not believe that nuclear weapon is a true concern of these continuous actions against Iranian regime. The issue must be looked from objective of each nation's point of view. Iranian "threat" is similar to Syrian threat that is based on systematic strategies in the Middle East region. Otherwise Human Rights in Syria or Iran is no worse than any other nations in that region. Recently in a report by BBC showed that India has "killed" far more political prisoners (mostly by torture) than Iran in past year. (//www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16281271) but we don't hear that.
Hope this makes sense.
Iranians make bad predictions, but good bets
by bahmani on Thu Dec 29, 2011 01:35 PM PSTNo Iranian, especially ones on this website, can predict the future. Especially us on this site are too emotionally charged, psychologically conflicted, and damaged to offer any kind of sane projection of events.
But we do make pretty good bets. So here's what I am betting:
Bet # 1: US won't attack Iran, EVER.
The US bombing Iran? Really? After 2 bad wars, Iraq, that just ended with pretty much a new dictator trying to establish control, and Afghanistan, which will soon end, but with a US installed government that is about to hand over control to the Taliban. AGAIN!
Coming up on what is touted to be a really close election, does anyone think that Obama would risk that with another unjustifiable war?
Choosing war with Iran, even over the strait closure, when the US does not import any Iranian oil, will all but guarantee victory to Romney or Gingrich (or Palin?).
Obama is not stupid. So attacking Iran is out of the question. Not to stop the nukes, not to stop the strait closure.
Bet # 2: Iran won't close the straits or develop a nuke.
Iran would not close the straits because that is how all it's oil gets out to the countries that still buy Iranian oil, which are the Chinese.
Iran won't build a nuke, because the cost is too high in the loss of what's left of Iran's political prestige in the world. Currently only 14% of the moslem world has a favorable view of Iran. Getting nukes will only require that Iraq, and Saudi Arabia must get them too, which takes all the fun and advantage out of Iran having them.
Side Insurance Bet # 2a:
If Iran gets a nuke, the US will give both nukes to Iraq, along with the same kind of anti-ballistic missile defense system that Turkey has.
Again, these are not predictions, but bets. Anyone willing to take them? I'll give 2:1 on Bet #1, 5:1 on Bet # 2, Bet # 2a is obvious, so only even odds, with simple bragging rights to the winner. Which is really the end prize we all want anyway.
To read more bahmani posts visit: //brucebahmani.blogspot.com/
Abarmard - Were you by any chance having "abgoosht"
by Onlyiran on Thu Dec 29, 2011 04:14 PM PSTwhen you wrote this analysis? Because it kind of smells like it.
My analysis: It would be a
by Simorgh5555 on Thu Dec 29, 2011 12:26 PM PSTMy analysis: It would be a good thing.
Abarmard jaan what's up w/ your new avatar? It is sucks!
by Esfand Aashena on Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:33 AM PSTEverything is sacred