Will there be a war with Iran?

[Kuntantee]

You do know that Saddam had one of the most powerful militaries in the world in 2001..right?

Shock and Awe lasted two weeks.

Plain wrong. Iraq had a shit army and an artificial country with people no desire to defend themselves from invaders. Iran is not like that.

- - - Updated - - -

Vietnam? North Korea?

You got your ass handed to yourself in Vietnam. What gives you confidence about Iran is beyond my comprehension.

[Deleted]

Would be a short war.

If they hit Israel, they get nuked.

[Flurryfang]

I take your argument of ''restrained'' and I destroy the entire argument it with ''iraq''....

12) iran is just 2 years away from a nuclear weapon is something these warmongers are saying for the last 20 plus years
2e) Their is no evidence (and their is plenty of evidence) that Iran has any intention to build a nuke. To make a nuke and to build a nuclear power plant are 2 totally different things. At best they researched the possibilities of nukes (not develop mind you) at some point which is nothing really.

Here is the thing.\

It's worrisome when at least half the relevant advisers of the next president would push for war or conflict, especially given knowing their misguided opinions you can be sure that they wouldn't care if the ''evidence'' was made up or not (just like with Iraq)

You seem to be forgetting that we don't live in the hyper age of 9/11 anymore. The populis can not be completly swayed to go against a nation, which is currently fighting ISIS, our current biggest enemy. You always need a good reason no matter what you do. Even if you have to make it up, you have to make something believeable like WOMD.

So Irag is sadly not a destroying argument here, because the age has past and new methods needs to be used. The terrible war in Irag and Afghanistan is not helping either to sway public opnion towards going to war with another desert nation. Iran is right now seeing a high financial growth because of the opening of trade, which have came at the cost of having an open nuclear program. If Iran goes outside of the fold, they will be pulled back in again by crippling sanctions.

[Kuntantee]

I see you still havent gotten a clue about western alliances, Denmark among many other small nations were in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. while the US have the military strenght to beat down anyone on this planet, they arent interested in becoming a pariah state, which is avoided by having several alliance countries join their wars. So when friends of mine join their wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I'll say we, because Danes are fighting next to Swedes, Norwegians, Dutch etc. etc.

You are not using "we" as in "we fought together". You are using we as in "we won't do this, do that". What I am telling you is the cold harsh reality. No one, absolutely no one gives a flying fuck about what Danes think or what Denmark wants. Your soldiers were just more meat for USA's imperial objectives.

I understand how "Western alliances" works. It is you who failed to understand the very premise of any alliance between unequals.

- - - Updated - - -

Didn't Iraq win the war against Iran back in the 1st gulf war?

Persian Gulf War (1990 - 91): between Iraq and West
Iran-Iraq War (1980-1987) : between Iraq and Iran.

Now for Iran-Iraq war, Iraq couldn't do jackshit to Iran. Iran then occupied some territories of Iraq but backed off after the resolution. Consider the fact that Iran pretty much conducted a proxy war against entire West over Iraq. I would call Iran a winner there.

[Combatbutler]

I understand how "Western alliances" works. It is you who failed to understand the very premise of any alliance between unequals.

Precisely, though I wouldn't say it is limited to unequals and western alliances, but allies in general. People can be friends but different nations ultimately cannot.

[LordOtaku666]

I'd be more inclined to believe the destabilization of the Euro will lead to WWIII then a war with Iran to be honest, but that's just my.02.

[Crispin]

You are not using "we" as in "we fought together". You are using we as in "we won't do this, do that". What I am telling you is the cold harsh reality. No one, absolutely no one gives a flying fuck about what Danes think or what Denmark wants. Your soldiers were just more meat for USA's imperial objectives.

I understand how "Western alliances" works. It is you who failed to understand the very premise of any alliance between unequals.

Apparently not, it's obvious to anyone that the US could have handled the Iraq and Afghanistan war on their own, when the US have allies joining "their" wars, it's for diplomatic reasons and not for someone to supply "meat", the US isnt Russia.

Do I think that Denmark or Austria on their own have a saying in what the US does? Ofcourse not, but your incompetence in understanding how western diplomacy works, is apparently an obstacle in understanding why I used the term "we", I currently do not see any Western country who would back an attack on Iran, which makes it very unlikely that it will happen.

I understand your argument very well, you want me to realise that my country with a population smaller than New York is insignificant as a player or in decision making, and on our own you're correct, I do not view Denmark as a "power to be reckoned with", but that's not the point at all.

[Trumpcat]

Iran will be pressed down hard, but there won't be a war. Hopefully Obama's ridiculous administration didn't manage to allow them to acquire nuclear weapons and they won't be able to do something stupid.

The argument that "if you don't want war, why do you surround with neocons..." is absurd on two levels:
- First, approving the Islamist regime in Iran for the sake of being against Trump is contradicting with anything you might proclaim you stand for.
- Second, the best way to avoid war is making everyone else not dare to start such. You need tough and smart people for that, not sissies who address Iran's Islamist leader as "Supreme Ruler".

Bonus point: good relations with Russia are critical for the resolution of issues in the Middle East.

[Deleted]

I'd be more inclined to believe the destabilization of the Euro will lead to WWIII then a war with Iran to be honest, but that's just my.02.

LOL, destabilization of currencies aren't even remotely causing wars.

[Deleted]

iran has an actual army, which is also quite large. so an easy overwhelming force military victory is out of the querstion, so no war will happen.

[Kuntantee]

doesn't look like Iran won that war too...

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

Both seem equally weak. or equally strong.

Iraq was supported by entire West, whereas Iran was mostly on his own. Considering they repelled a full-out invasion after the revolution and even invaded Iraq against the support of entire West, I personally would call Iran the winner here but if you judge by the end-results, it's a stalemate, yes.

There are states and real states in ME. Iran is one of the two real states (the other being Turkey). Rest are states without statehood history or countries without people having a common interest and culture. USA will meet with national resistance in Iran.

[Deleted]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

O.o USSR on the same side with USA? .... Israel and North Korea on Iran's side?

[caervek]

Didn't Iraq win the war against Iran back in the 1st gulf war?

The 1st Gulf war happened in the 90's and was a US led coalition against Iraq (until then a US ally) who had invaded Kuwait (a more important US ally).

The Iran/Iraq war happened in the 80's and was a large scale conventional war between Iraq (a US ally) and Iran (a former US ally), this is where Iran set the record for most F-14 kills. There was no winner, the US had hoped that by buying Saddam enough time he could get the job done but after 8 years and no winner the UN brokered a peace deal.

- - - Updated - - -

O.o USSR on the same side with USA? .... Israel and North Korea on Iran's side?

Israel never fought with Iran during the war, they just attacked Iraq at the same time, both launched attacks on Iraq's nuclear power station with Israel scoring the killing blow (to both the plant and the French contractors building it).

The USA and USSR were both selling weapons to Iraq, neither wanted to lose sales/influence to the other and Iran wasn't an option due to US sanctions. This is why Iraq started the war outgunned but quickly ende dup with the superior military (on paper) because Iran couldn't resupply and Iraq had both superpowers figuratively fighting for their business.

[Kuntantee]

wrong dude. you are talking about the 2nd gulf war.

the 1st gulf war is between iraq & iran

2nd gulf war is between kuwait & iraq.

3rd gulf war is between iraq & USA.

First Gulf War is Persian Gulf War (90-91).

[caervek]

wrong dude. you are talking about the 2nd gulf war.

No, you're getting confused.

The first gulf war (AKA Desert storm, but usually called the gulf war) took place between 1990-1991 and was between Iraq and a US led coalition that liberated Kuwait from Iraq, then battered Iraq.

The second gulf war (AKA Operation Iraqi Freedom, but usually referred too as the second gulf war) took place in 2003 and was between Iraq and a US led coalition.

The third war you're thinking of is the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980's (sometimes referred to as the Persian Gulf War), which was between Iran/Iraq (obviously) and ended in a stalemate.

[HumbleDuck]

I don't think so.
Something may happen like what happened during WWI, but a direct conflict isn't going to happen.
Iran is already in proxy war with US, and that may escalate, but that would be the extent of it.
You should consider that Iran shows alot of flexibility when the situation is tricky, like during Iran- Iraq war, gulf wars and Afghanistan campaign.

[PACOX]

Iran talks shit but its not crazy at it wants you to believe. Iran's government would be decimated in a war with the US. We're talking a huge swift and aggressive operation like beating on Saddam (not referring to the aftermath).

Israel wants Iran to throw a stone so bad just so that Israel has an excuse to unleash its wrath upon Iran. The people of Iran aren't stupid and would surely rebel before or only ear if the government takes the country into a war with the US/NATO/Israel because the outcome would be catastrophic for the nation and the region.

Most you'll see from Iran is more postering and some heating situations but nothing real that would start a war.

[Kuntantee]

No, you're getting confused.

The first gulf war (AKA Desert storm, but usually called the gulf war) took place between 1990-1991 and was between Iraq and a US led coalition that liberated Kuwait from Iraq, then battered Iraq.

The second gulf war (AKA Operation Iraqi Freedom, but usually referred too as the second gulf war) took place in 2003 and was between Iraq and a US led coalition.

The third war you're thinking of is the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980's (sometimes referred to as the Persian Gulf War), which was between Iran/Iraq (obviously) and ended in a stalemate.

The third war is not referred as "Persian Gulf War", it's another name of 1st Gulf War. The gulf we are talking about is a geographical term. It's called Persian Gulf.

[ParanoiD84]

You meen a war between Saudi and Iran? like their proxy war in yemen. Sure they can duke it out, will be fun to watch.

[caervek]

The third war is not referred as "Persian Gulf War", it's another name of 1st Gulf War. The gulf we are talking about is a geographical term. It's called Persian Gulf.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying, I meant third war as in the third on on the list, not the chronological third war that happened in that area.

The Iran/Iraq war (AKA the Persian Gulf War) was the first to occur but happened in the 80's prior to the Gulf War (AKA Desert Storm) which later became known as the 1st Gulf War after the 2nd Gulf War (AKA Operation Iraqi Freedom) occurred in 2003. The Iran/Iraq war is sometimes referred too as the Persian Gulf War specifically to avoid confusion with the Gulf Wars between Iraq and the coalitions.