War with Iran is Inevitable

[A'isha]

So Iran had issues with Saddam, but even engaged in a full-out war with Iraq they still armed, trained, and equipped Palestinian terrorist groups.

And they did the same for groups fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan, too, also while engaged in that full-out war with Iraq.

Would you argue that during the Vietnam War the Soviet Union wasn't the USA's #1 enemy, North Vietnam was?

Why would you think that's in any way a comparable situation? Even setting aside the relative disparities in the threat posed by North Vietnam vs. the USSR to America, and Iraq vs. Israel to Iran, there are so similarities whatsoever in the geostrategic situation and goals of the US vis-a-vis Vietnam and the USSR, and the geostrategic situation and goals of Iran vis-a-vis Iraq and Israel.

And that's even before we get to the whole thing where the US' involvement in Vietnam was part and parcel of their conflict with the USSR, in a fashion that simply has no parallel in Iran's conflicts with Iraq and Israel.

 

[WildCat]

What exactly do you think is between the UK and the falklands? Admittedly the weird fantasy we keep hearing about Saudi Arabia allowing them overflight rights suggests the Israeli air force may not be that competent.

The UK has a navy, and aircraft carriers. Or at least they did back then. Israel's navy is geared for coastal defense, they have no carriers.

Yes and no. You could mount a tallboy on an F-16 and the technolgy must have improved since WW2.

I don't see an F-16 carrying the ordnance necessary for the job at hand. Weight matters with bunker busters.

Isreal needs to rebuild its reputation post Lebanon. Strong incentive to really find a way to pull it off.

I'm just not seeing it.

 

[Toontown]

Well first of all you should get your facts straight because that's wrong, and secondly a war with Iran is potentially disastrous for the world economy that's already hurting (which is one of the reasons why Obama probably will do everything to prevent it from happening).

What's wrong? The ayahtollahs aren't crazed? Europe actually will take a stand against crazed nuclear ayahtollahs?

Secondly, a nuclear Iran (is) potentially fatal for the world economy which cannot stand having 20% of it's oil supply choked off by a regime which has a demonstrated penchant for doing just that, not to mention repeatedly voiced desires. Not to mention other repeatedly voiced desires of a decidedly unpleasant nature.

Oh well. I wish you all the best of luck when the mullahs can choke it off with a nuclear deterrent to hold everyone at bay while they keep it choked off. Presumably you have a 6 month supply of canned goods squirreled away to tide you over when the trucks stop running. I wouldn't let anyone know you have those if I were you.

Of course not, antagonizing and threatening the Iranians gives them only more reasons to develop nuclear weapons.

Of course. And the crazed ayahtollahs have to be allowed to do whatever TF they want to do, whatever that is. Because that is how civilization functions. Try not to antagonize crazed ayahtollahs.

We'll just have to trust them not to do anything crazy, unpleasant, or world-economy-choking with the nukes.

And of course, we'll have to give them a special pass on their NPT obligations. Certain special countries, such as ones run by crazed ayahtollahs, must be allowed to ignore their treaty obligations and actually increase the number of nukes on the monkeyball, rather than work to decrease their number, as the treaty obligations require, as all other signatories have done. Clearly, a special exception must be made, on the basis of crazed ayahtollahood. Because that's how a true civilization functions. For a while.

Not to mention it's highly hypocritical considering all the other states that already have nuclear weapons, and that waging war and crippling economic sanctions are hugely disproportionate to the problem.

Yeah, you're right. Iran deserves to have nukes. Everyone who lives on a monkeyball like this deserves to have nukes.

I hope you get your wish. I can't think of a more deserving wish-recipient than you. Nor can I think of a more trustworthy nuke-clutcher than the mad ayahtollahs, who apparently hold grudges forever, becoming increasingly vindictive as they nurse their grudges over time. That, more than anything else, is what makes me know we can trust them. So I guess you've got me brainwashed pretty good.

 

[AlBell]

If you're trying to back Wildcat up in his support for the assertion that "Iran has always viewed Israel as its No. 1 adversary", you're not doing a very good job.

At least as good as mentioning the Iran-Iraq conflict as an attempt to debunk the assertion.

The US fights multi-wars, as do other countries.

 

[A'isha]

At least as good as mentioning the Iran-Iraq conflict as an attempt to debunk the assertion.

No, not really. Not even close, actually.

The US fights multi-wars, as do other countries.

And what are the multi-war fighting capabilities of the US as compared to Iran?

When was the last time civilians and government officials fled the US capital city in wartime due to enemy air and artillery attack?

When did the US, to tie this directly into your own post, have to use anything like the Basij, child soldiers recruited for human wave attacks and marched straight into minefields and machinegun fire because the government and army were desperate for soldiers to fight off an invading force?

Or do you think, perhaps, that maybe comparing the US to Iran in this regard might be less than illustrative, and so it would behoove you to stop doing it?

 

[WildCat]

No, not really. Not even close, actually.



And what are the multi-war fighting capabilities of the US as compared to Iran?

When was the last time civilians and government officials fled the US capital city in wartime due to enemy air and artillery attack?

When did the US, to tie this directly into your own post, have to use anything like the Basij, child soldiers recruited for human wave attacks and marched straight into minefields and machinegun fire because the government and army were desperate for soldiers to fight off an invading force?

Or do you think, perhaps, that maybe comparing the US to Iran in this regard might be less than illustrative, and so it would behoove you to stop doing it?

You're making my case for me. Iran must really have a psychopathic hatred of Israel to divert their resources to it while in the midst of a horrific war with Iraq. Israel was no threat at all to Iran.

 

[A'isha]

You're making my case for me. Iran must really have a psychopathic hatred of Israel to divert their resources to it while in the midst of a horrific war with Iraq. Israel was no threat at all to Iran.

And you're making mine for me. Iran must also really have had a psychopathic hatred of the USSR to divert their resources to fighting it while in the midst of a horrific war with Iraq.

 

[WildCat]

And you're making mine for me. Iran must also really have had a psychopathic hatred of the USSR to divert their resources to fighting it while in the midst of a horrific war with Iraq.

What is your evidence they diverted resources to fighting the Soviets? AFAIK Iran's only involvement was the fact that it's next door and the border is porous. Mujahedeen would take refuge there, but I haven't seen anything indicating they were actively devoting resources to fighting the Soviets.

 

[Bikewer]

Meanwhile... Various state department types (and all the presidential candidates) say succinctly... "Iran will not be allowed to have The Bomb."

That's pretty definite... Sounds like a policy statement to me.

 

[A'isha]

From J. Bruce Armstutz's Afghanistan: The First Five Years of Soviet Occupation:

Although the Peshawar-based exile groups overshadowed all others in world attention, three Afghan resistance groups had offices in Qum, Iran. These groups were:

(1) The Afghanistan Islamic Movement Association, led by a Hazara named Mohamed Asif Mohseni.

(2) The Al-Nasr (Victory) group, headed by Mir Hoseyn Sadequi.

(3) The Shura.

[...]

Up until 1981, Iranian support had been more verbal than material. Then in 1981 or 1982 the Khomeini government began to provide some material assistance, including arms, to the Hazarajat-based Al Nasr. When the Khomeini government offered to do the same for other resistance groups, including Massoud's in the Panjshir Valley, the offer was rebuffed because of political conditions requiring support for Iran's foreign policy. What then happened is best described by the following account of a French reporter in 1983:

The Iranians consider the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the most favorable situation for the consolidation and extension of their influence in the country. In the beginning they decided to help all the Hazara groups without discrimination. When it did not work according to their wishes, they changed their policy and decided to federate the groups under the umbrella of one organization, Nasr, a party which they found the best organized. Nasr, founded in 1980, is the amalgamation of two parties...the Iranians gave their support to Nasr which had established strong bases. ...

But last year (1982) the Iranians sent a delegation to Hazarajat in order to investigate the activities of Nasr and to see how their military and financial help was being used. The Iranians were deeply disappointed and convinced that it was impossible to accomplish anything with the Afghan parties. Then they decided to operate through their own Iranian party inside Afghanistan and created the Sepah-e-Pasdaran; it has the same structure and the same organization as the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Party, only the members are Afghans. This year Nasr is losing strength fast and Sepah-e-Pasdaran is receiving all the assistance. But for the ordinary Hazara, there is little difference between Nasr and Sepah.

EDIT: The "Massoud" who had a resistance group in the Panjshir Valley mentioned above (which the Khomeini government offered arms and other material support to as the Iran-Iraq War was in full swing) was, of course, Ahmad Shah Massoud, the "Lion of Panjshir" who was the main resistance figure in the fight against the Soviets.

 

[WildCat]

From J. Bruce Armstutz's Afghanistan: The First Five Years of Soviet Occupation:



EDIT: The "Massoud" who had a resistance group in the Panjshir Valley mentioned above (which the Khomeini government offered arms and other material support to as the Iran-Iraq War was in full swing) was, of course, Ahmad Shah Massoud, the "Lion of Panjshir" who was the main resistance figure in the fight against the Soviets.

I'm reading that as Iran trying to push its influence among the Shiites (especially Persian-speaking Hazara) in Aghanistan, not fighting the Soviets. In fact the Hazara supported by Iran fought mostly with other Hazara factions, not the Soviets.

During the Soviet war in Afghanistan, the Hazarajat region did not see as much heavy fighting like other regions of Afghanistan. However, rival Hazara political factions fought. The division was between the Tanzáim-e nasl-e naw-e Hazara, a party based in Quetta, of Hazara nationalists and secular intellectuals, and the pro-Khomeini Islamist parties backed by the new Islamic Republic of Iran.[6] By 1979, the Iran-backed Islamist groups liberated Hazarajat from the central Soviet-backed Afghan government and later took entire control of Hazarajat away from the secularists. By 1984, after severe fighting, the secularist groups lost all their power to the Islamists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazara_people

 

[A'isha]

I'm reading that as Iran trying to push its influence among the Shiites (especially Persian-speaking Hazara) in Aghanistan, not fighting the Soviets. In fact the Hazara supported by Iran fought mostly with other Hazara factions, not the Soviets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazara_people

An unsourced sentence in a Wiki article? Against a book about the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, written by the former US charge d'affaires in Kabul, detailing the Iranian military and financial support for several of the anti-Soviet mujahidin groups in Afghanistan, as well as their efforts and offers to provide the same to the main anti-Soviet mujahidin force operating in the country?

That's what leads you to the conclusion that when Dr. Armstutz talks about these groups, in the section of his book specifically describing anti-Soviet resistance organizations in Afghanistan, he's really talking about Iranian military and financial support for rival groups in the Hazarajat that had nothing to do with the USSR?

Okay, sure. Whatever floats your boat. Let's go with that.

So, can you tell me why you think Iranian diversion of resources to military and financial support against Israel while in the midst of a horrific war against Iraq is a sign of their pathological hatred of Israel, but Iranian diversion of resources to military and financial support of one group of ethnic Hazara in Afghanistan against another group while in the midst of a horrific war against Iraq is merely...um...merely...

...actually, I have no idea how you explain that. Can you enlighten me, please?

If Iran's blowing of money and resources (that they so desperately needed during their brutal death-struggle with Iraq) to attack Israel reveals the sheer depths of their Israel-hate, what does Iran's blowing of money and resources (that they so desperately needed during their brutal death-struggle with Iraq) to gain a little bit of influence among one of the many ethnic groups inhabiting one of the most backwards and godforsaken countries on the planet signify?

I'd really like to know.

 

[Toontown]

Meanwhile... Various state department types (and all the presidential candidates) say succinctly... "Iran will not be allowed to have The Bomb."

That's pretty definite... Sounds like a policy statement to me.

Might be a policy statement. Or might be a prayer. Might not have a prayer if they're talking about unilateral action - which would make old Uncle Sam a big-time scapegoat on the monkeyball.

It strikes me as being quite possible that the crazed ayahtollahs might be allowed to have The Bomb, but only for as long as it takes for them to jack up catastrophically as an unfortunate result of having It, and holding It, and loving It, and feeling Allah-blessed by It, and extrapolating as to why Allah gave It to them. I once had a friend (really just an associate) who kept saying everything exists for a reason, and then kept pointing to nukes and asking what their reason for existing must be. So I know there are people who think that way, more's the pity.

Mu..Mu..Maybe we better just go ahead and let them have whatever they want. I'm getting scared already...

 

[bigjelmapro]

An unsourced sentence in a Wiki article? Against a book about the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, written by the former US charge d'affaires in Kabul, detailing the Iranian military and financial support for several of the anti-Soviet mujahidin groups in Afghanistan, as well as their efforts and offers to provide the same to the main anti-Soviet mujahidin force operating in the country?
...

AFAIK, you've been linking pro-Iran, Shia groups, to gain influence in Afghanistan. Funding for predominantly gaining political influence within that country.

This versus Iran's state-sponsored terrorism and its exportation of it, from Islamic Jihad in Gaza from the 1980's onwards, sending predominantly weapons, smuggling in recently trained fedayeen back into Gaza to carry out attacks back from Iran, to Hezbollah, that started in 1982, with its activities against Israel in civil war stricken Lebanon.

To my knowledge, the Iranians sent the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Qods force from the early 1980's to places like Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, supplying hands-on training, munitions, and so forth. This wasn't the case early on in Afghanistan, until post-Soviet era Afghanistan (2001 onwards) with support of the Taliban.

Iran's Revolutionary Guards

Soviet-era Afghanistan and Iran's funding of its anti-Soviet political groups, wasn't proxy warfare as it was with state-sponsored terrorism of groups like Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and more consistently now, Hamas. A bit more is required to compare the prior to the latter other than its political alignment (ie anti-Soviet).

 

[A'isha]

I'm not trying to argue that Iran had the same goals and motivations or anything in supporting Islamic Jihad/Hezbollah, and supporting Shura/al-Nasr/Sepah-e Pasdaran (and attempting to back Massoud).

Just providing a counter-example against Wildcat's claim that "Iran must really have a psychopathic hatred of Israel to divert their resources to it while in the midst of a horrific war with Iraq," since they diverted their resources to a number of things other than just anti-Israel terrorism during that period.

Iran really, really, doesn't like Israel, but their foreign policy has always had plenty of other aspects to it (and often, such as during their war with Iraq, those other aspects took priority).

 

[WildCat]

An unsourced sentence in a Wiki article? Against a book about the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, written by the former US charge d'affaires in Kabul, detailing the Iranian military and financial support for several of the anti-Soviet mujahidin groups in Afghanistan, as well as their efforts and offers to provide the same to the main anti-Soviet mujahidin force operating in the country?

That's what leads you to the conclusion that when Dr. Armstutz talks about these groups, in the section of his book specifically describing anti-Soviet resistance organizations in Afghanistan, he's really talking about Iranian military and financial support for rival groups in the Hazarajat that had nothing to do with the USSR?

Your own quote says nothing about these groups fighting the Soviets under Iranian direction, nor that fighting the Soviets was Iran's motivation in funding them. Iran's interest in Afghanistan wasn't in defeating the Soviets, it was in propping up shia trribes they thought could help spread the Iranian revolution/ideology. Your quote also makes clear that any group taking Iranian money had to pledge to support Iranian foreign policy, and Massoud rejected it and didn't take the money.

This supports Iran looking to spread its ideology, not fighting the Soviets.

So, can you tell me why you think Iranian diversion of resources to military and financial support against Israel while in the midst of a horrific war against Iraq is a sign of their pathological hatred of Israel, but Iranian diversion of resources to military and financial support of one group of ethnic Hazara in Afghanistan against another group while in the midst of a horrific war against Iraq is merely...um...merely...

...actually, I have no idea how you explain that. Can you enlighten me, please?

If Iran's blowing of money and resources (that they so desperately needed during their brutal death-struggle with Iraq) to attack Israel reveals the sheer depths of their Israel-hate, what does Iran's blowing of money and resources (that they so desperately needed during their brutal death-struggle with Iraq) to gain a little bit of influence among one of the many ethnic groups inhabiting one of the most backwards and godforsaken countries on the planet signify?

Let's back up to the original claim that was disputed, before your goalpost moving attempt: "As Iran has always viewed Israel as its No. 1 adversary".

Spreading their ideology isn't fighting an adversary, their #1 adversary (in their minds) has always been Israel.

 

[A'isha]

Your own quote says nothing about these groups fighting the Soviets under Iranian direction, nor that fighting the Soviets was Iran's motivation in funding them. Iran's interest in Afghanistan wasn't in defeating the Soviets, it was in propping up shia trribes they thought could help spread the Iranian revolution/ideology. Your quote also makes clear that any group taking Iranian money had to pledge to support Iranian foreign policy, and Massoud rejected it and didn't take the money.

So, when Dr. Amstutz describes Iranian financial and military support for certain groups in Afghanistan, and then says that they offered the same support to "other resistance groups" like Massoud's, what similarities among all those groups do you think he was talking about when he referred to them collectively like that?

Not that it really matters, since, as I said, I'm completely accepting your reading of this for the purposes of my question below.

Let's back up to the original claim that was disputed, before your goalpost moving attempt: "As Iran has always viewed Israel as its No. 1 adversary".

Spreading their ideology isn't fighting an adversary, their #1 adversary (in their minds) has always been Israel.

I wasn't "moving" anything. I was attempting to address a specific argument you tried to make in support of that original claim. You know, where you said "Iran must really have a psychopathic hatred of Israel to divert their resources to it while in the midst of a horrific war with Iraq."

You were pretty explicitly saying that the very fact of that resource diversion during the Iran-Iraq War is evidence that Iran considered Israel to be their primary adversary, to the point that they were even willing to expend resources to combat that adversary which they desperately needed elsewhere.

And yet, Iran also diverted resources to supporting the above mujahidin groups in Afghanistan while in the midst of a horrific war with Iraq. So, according to your own argument, that means Iran also had some other "psychopathic hatred" revealed by this additional willingness to expend resources on it which they desperately needed elsewhere.

So what was that, Wildcat? What did Iran have a psychopathic hatred of in Afghanistan to divert their resources to it while in the midst of a horrific war with Iraq?

 

[WildCat]

So, when Dr. Amstutz describes Iranian financial and military support for certain groups in Afghanistan, and then says that they offered the same support to "other resistance groups" like Massoud's, what similarities among all those groups do you think he was talking about when he referred to them collectively like that?

If the support is contingent on the groups receiving it to support Iran's foreign policy (and not contingent on fighting the Soviets), then it seems to me that buying support for Iran's foreign policy is the primary goal and not fighting the Soviets. Iran didn't care about the Soviets, they would offer the same deal to Afghans fighting other Afghans, and in fact they did just that both during and after the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan. Which is why the Taliban killed 9 Iranian diplomats when they took Mazar-e-Sharif in 1998 and stormed the Iranian consulate there.

Not that it really matters, since, as I said, I'm completely accepting your reading of this for the purposes of my question below.

I wasn't "moving" anything. I was attempting to address a specific argument you tried to make in support of that original claim. You know, where you said "Iran must really have a psychopathic hatred of Israel to divert their resources to it while in the midst of a horrific war with Iraq."

You were pretty explicitly saying that the very fact of that resource diversion during the Iran-Iraq War is evidence that Iran considered Israel to be their primary adversary, to the point that they were even willing to expend resources to combat that adversary which they desperately needed elsewhere.

You seem to be claiming that Iran can only have a single goal at any time? That it can't fight its adversaries while also seeking to spread their Shiite revolution?

And yet, Iran also diverted resources to supporting the above mujahidin groups in Afghanistan while in the midst of a horrific war with Iraq. So, according to your own argument, that means Iran also had some other "psychopathic hatred" revealed by this additional willingness to expend resources on it which they desperately needed elsewhere.

Iran wasn't trying to spread their ideology to Israel, they were trying to destroy it. That's why they fund even Sunni factions like Hamas, because the goal of this is to fight an adversary - Israel. Not to spread their revolution and influence to other Shiite groups.

So what was that, Wildcat? What did Iran have a psychopathic hatred of in Afghanistan to divert their resources to it while in the midst of a horrific war with Iraq?

As should be apparent even to you by now, Iran wasn't interested in fighting against anything in Afghanistan, they were willing to support those fighting for Iran's policy agenda, specifically in spreading their revolution and gaining foreign support for Iran.

But Israel? That's solely because they see them as an adversary.

 

[A'isha]

That's nice, but your argument wasn't that Iran displayed their pathological hatred of Israel because they were diverting resources to groups in Lebanon while in the midst of a horrific war with Iraq to fight against Israel, while they were merely diverting resources to groups in Afghanistan while in the midst of a horrific war with Iraq just to spread their influence and ideology.

Your argument was, and I'll even quote it again for you, "Iran must really have a psychopathic hatred of Israel to divert their resources to it while in the midst of a horrific war with Iraq." And you meant that their willingness to divert their resources, period, was highly significant in that regard, since you made this statement in a reply to a post where I detailed just how desperate Iran's situation was during the war against Iraq.

And you accuse me of moving goalposts?

 

[bigjelmapro]

Its a counter-example, sure, but a poor one, IMO. Soviet-era support by Iran is by no means even in the same ballpark as its state-sponsored terrorism seen elsewhere, as in Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Gaza and more so the West Bank, post-2001 Afghanistan and Iraq. The Iran-Iraq war was predominantly about oil-rich land and trade routes, that flared up in a full-fledged war, with ceasefire agreements in between.

Iran merely threw some money and small arms at some pro-Iran/Shia groups that happened to be anti-Soviet as well (because really, who wouldn't be anti-Soviet in that area through that period unless you were in the pocket of the Soviets). These by no means were and continue to be the same efforts Iran puts into groups like Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and more today, Hamas.

On the other end, you have Iran's state-sponsored terrorism and proxy war with Israel, the US and Western interests. Post-1979 Iran did in fact have it in for Israel and the US for their involvement (Israel to a lesser degree but still in the same boat) with Iranian politics and the pro-Western Shah. (ie Operation Ajac, Iran contra, etc). To my knowledge, Soviet Russia stayed clear of meddling with Iran and share a pretty comfortable relationship. (Strangely another distinction in addition to the following, the differing relationships between Iran and Russia and Iran and the US).

Unlike Iran's indirect involvement in Afghanistan pre-2001, Iran made direct and concerted efforts against its proxy warfare targets (high-tech weapons by ballistic missiles, MADPADs, anti-ship missiles, shared military intel, etc) hence the distinction by Wildcat, which I do understand, and you should by now understand.

IMO, there's no moving of goalposts, just this need to level the playing field by you as if Iran's pre-2001 relationship with certain groups in Afghanistan is on a 1:1 to that of Iran's proxy warfare with other groups against Israel and the US.