Ed Israel/US Attacks Iran /Yet Another Country/Iran

[angrysoba]

The Iranian theocracy is pretty abysmal. Guess what? So was Saddam Hussein.

The obvious course of action is to go in there, root out the terrible regime, end its weapons of mass destruction, and maybe set up a nice stable democracy in its place.

Of course, that won't happen.

Not only would it be folly to attempt Iraq War Part 2, but this time, the main actors are not even interested in nation-building. Trump is pretty much allergic to it. Israel is not even remotely interested.

So what we would have is just the decapitation of a regime, maybe a lot of bombing, and then what? I suppose the honest answer would be, "Who cares?"

But also, how would "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER" play out?

We saw how it played out in Japan and Germany after World War Two, but in both cases it involved long-term occupation.

I suspect that even if Iran said, "We unconditionally surrender" the US would not even know what to do. What could they do?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

My guess is that the CIA/Mossad have a plan in the drawer to move anti -Iranian terror groups into the country, and pay and assist militant sectarian forces to make it look like there is a popular military uprising against the regime, and maybe split the country into separate entities.
It worked in Syria after all.

Of course, the long-term consequences of leaving a radical anti-Suni group in control of the remnants of the Iranian nuclear program would be devastating for the region; but only in 5-10 years, after which neither Trump nor Netanjahu will be in power.

 

[angrysoba]

There are already sectarian groups in the country, such as Baluchi separatists and Kurdish separatists.

 

[angrysoba]

No fan of Sohrab Ahmari, and I am sure he is no fan of the Ayatollahs, but what he says squares with my own impression of anti-Khameinist Iranians...

Perhaps you are tempted to say: “Who cares! Let Iran get dismembered.” But this would be to forget the importance of maintaining a legitimate central authority that relates in a stable way with its society. Whether the West installs Pahlavi or a social democrat or a reformed regime officer, the central authority can’t be seen to compromise on Iran’s territorial integrity. If it does compromise, it risks deligitimisation. If it doesn’t compromise, it will require military support to maintain territorial integrity.

Here, then, is a recipe for a civil war — in all its ethnic, sectarian, and ideological dimensions — that would radiate instability into Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, and elsewhere: all places where the United States has serious interests, troops or personnel, or both. An outbreak of ethno-sectarian conflict, then, would put pressure on Washington to intervene. For Europe, the civil-war scenario would almost certainly mean a massive migrant wave, potentially dwarfing the 2015-2016 exodus from Syria.

Accompanying this is the problem of regime remnants. The hawks insist that only a tiny minority of Iranians support the regime; everyone else, in their telling, is a mini-skirt-wearing, rave-attending spiritual denizen of LA or Miami, who just happens to be living in Islamic Iran.

What nonsense. There is no way to accurately poll Iranian society. But we do know that the Islamic Republic enjoys a core of support among a not-insignificant share of the population, either as a result of ideological commitment or the material benefits they and their family members have drawn through membership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps or the basij paramilitia. Otherwise, no amount of repression would have kept the regime in power for nearly half a century.

In any case, even the secularist-minded opponents of the regime are by most accounts rallying to the flag as we speak. The impression I got from numerous telephone calls over the weekend was that the nezam (system) and the populace are being drawn closer together as a result of the Israeli actions. Some cheer the outcome, it’s true, but as a whole, the mutual alienation between state and society is dissipating somewhat, as popular athletes make military salutes in solidarity with the armed forces and artists publish illustrations extolling resistance and generally people rally to the flag.

Maybe that effect won’t last as the invasion intensifies. Still, we must wonder: how likely is it that this new, post-Islamic Republic regime will have to confront a reactionary rump of some size? The answer: highly likely. Which is another reason why it’s folly to believe that the current regime can be collapsed without American forces having to descend to prop up a new state.

Let’s not forget the nuclear program, either. Among the separatist groups are hard-core Sunni Islamists inspired by different shades of al-Qaeda or Isis ideology. Now, keep in mind that Iran is also home to a near-completed nuclear program. Who is going to secure said programme against the Islamists? That’s right — the United States.

The regime change maniacs are back

unherd.com

 

[angrysoba]

It's astounding, in some ways, that Trump won election while claiming that he could end two wars is now assisting in starting a third one, and potentially a far more devastating one.

In this case, without even the pretense that anything resembling nation-building or a stable Iran is going to be put in place afterwards.

What we have is a dumb sack of ◊◊◊◊ in the Oval Office, who is easily flattered or cajoled into taking credit for other people's ideas. So, Netanyahu has the idea of bombing Iran, and the sad dupe will go along with it claiming that he was the architect of the whole thing.

 

[stanfr]

It's astounding, in some ways, that Trump won election while claiming that he could end two wars is now assisting in starting a third one, and potentially a far more devastating one.

In this case, without even the pretense that anything resembling nation-building or a stable Iran is going to be put in place afterwards.

What we have is a dumb sack of ◊◊◊◊ in the Oval Office, who is easily flattered or cajoled into taking credit for other people's ideas. So, Netanyahu has the idea of bombing Iran, and the sad dupe will go along with it claiming that he was the architect of the whole thing.

I seriously doubt that Trump could point to Iran on a map. Or Israel, for that matter.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The amount of forces the US is moving in strongly suggests that Trump will do something .
It might just be one sortie with the biggest bombers targeting the underground sites Israel can't reach and then stop. Then he will take credit for everything positive, belittle Netanjahu a bit for not getting the job done and blame him for everything that will go wrong afterwards.

Of course, that will leave neither the Hawks nor the Isolationist or the End Times Evangelicals happy.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Of course relocating all these assets leaves Taiwan wide open.

 

[Explorer]

What reliable on the ground source? You haven't presented any such source.

My link was certainly better than your whiskered Google map.

 

[angrysoba]

The amount of forces the US is moving in strongly suggests that Trump will do something .
It might just be one sortie with the biggest bombers targeting the underground sites Israel can't reach and then stop. Then he will take credit for everything positive, belittle Netanjahu a bit for not getting the job done and blame him for everything that will go wrong afterwards.

Of course, that will leave neither the Hawks nor the Isolationist or the End Times Evangelicals happy.

Of course relocating all these assets leaves Taiwan wide open.

They said that if you didn't vote for Donald Trump, you'd be stuck with endless wars.

And they were right!

 

[arthwollipot]

There is always going to be a reason why they left.

But either way, I wonder what you are getting at.

I'm getting at the fact that opposing the Ayatollah in Iran can be hazardous. So the opinions of those Iranians who have left Iran might be somewhat biased.

Did you only read that first sentence and not bother with anything that I wrote after that?

I replied to the part of your post that I wanted to reply to.

 

[arthwollipot]

The Iranian theocracy is pretty abysmal. Guess what? So was Saddam Hussein.

The obvious course of action is to go in there, root out the terrible regime, end its weapons of mass destruction, and maybe set up a nice stable democracy in its place.

Because there were obviously no adverse consequences to the Iraq war.

Of course, that won't happen.

Of course it won't. Because it's a stupid idea.

Not only would it be folly to attempt Iraq War Part 2, but this time, the main actors are not even interested in nation-building. Trump is pretty much allergic to it. Israel is not even remotely interested.

So what we would have is just the decapitation of a regime, maybe a lot of bombing, and then what? I suppose the honest answer would be, "Who cares?"

But also, how would "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER" play out?

We saw how it played out in Japan and Germany after World War Two, but in both cases it involved long-term occupation.

I suspect that even if Iran said, "We unconditionally surrender" the US would not even know what to do. What could they do?

You've thought about this far more than Trump has.

 

[angrysoba]

I'm getting at the fact that opposing the Ayatollah in Iran can be hazardous.

Why don't you just say that then? What's the point in making people guess what you are saying?

I don't know, and still don't, if what you are saying is that their opinions are more trustworthy because they are less afraid of contradicting the regime, or less reliable because they are more likely to be disgruntled opponents who are out of touch with the current society.

So the opinions of those Iranians who have left Iran might be somewhat biased.

Whose opinions are not biased?

 

[angrysoba]

Because there were obviously no adverse consequences to the Iraq war.

There were many. And they are likely to be repeated. They could be even worse.

 

[arthwollipot]

Why don't you just say that then? What's the point in making people guess what you are saying?

I did just say it. I'm not sure why you're having trouble with it. It shouldn't require any guessing.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Worth remembering that most of the Iranian Leadership lived through the Iran-Iraq war, so it's unlikely that their pain threshold is going to be reached soon.

 

[angrysoba]

4.

I did just say it. I'm not sure why you're having trouble with it. It shouldn't require any guessing.

How about this chain of posts that I had to ask clarification for?

1.

All of whom, I expect, now live outside Iran.

2.

Because sometimes there might be a reason they left.

3.

I'm getting at the fact that opposing the Ayatollah in Iran can be hazardous. So the opinions of those Iranians who have left Iran might be somewhat biased.

I replied to the part of your post that I wanted to reply to.

It's possible that I am just going mad, but to me your posting style appears to be willfully uncooperative.

I wanted to know why 1 was relevant, and so you said 2, yet it wasn't until 3. that you got to the point, and yet in 4. you insist you "did just say it".

 

[Ziggurat]

My link was certainly better than your whiskered Google map.

No it isn't. Everyone can check Google Maps themselves. No one can verify the claims in your link.

 

[Ziggurat]

Worth remembering that most of the Iranian Leadership lived through the Iran-Iraq war, so it's unlikely that their pain threshold is going to be reached soon.

I think we've probably reached the pain threshold for the dead ones.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course, the long-term consequences of leaving a radical anti-Suni group in control of the remnants of the Iranian nuclear program would be devastating for the region;

Indeed. We cannot let the Mullahs retain their nuclear program, that absolutely would be devastating.