The U.S. Stands to Lose Much More Than a War With Iran

[Beny Karachun]

I have a better idea: let the USA regime try its luck and actually proceed with all the above. Oh, it won't? Thought so.

They turned your biggest general into a Shawarma skewer and could do the same to every other person in Iran

 

[Meengla]

In a nutshell: USA Iran war can only be won by USA through nukes.

Correct.
But Iran is not some geographically isolated nation; perhaps if Iran was some relatively remote island nation then nukes were an option. But Iran is too close to several very important countries of the world, including America's allies in Europe and Israel.
Iran's biggest deterrent is Iran's conventional assets targeting Israel and you know Americans can't accept Israel's economy shut down even for a week or Israelis dying. And therefore, much like North Korea which can destroy Seoul by conventional weaponry as a deterrent, Iran has Israel in under great threat.

 

[Beny Karachun]

Iran is doing exactly that without a so-called deal. Except for pursuing nuclear weapons, which has not been and isn't on the agenda.

The JCPOA was intended to be followed up by similar agreements neutralizing Iran's missile arsenal as well as regional alliance system. Iran perfectly stuck to her engagements under the JCPOA, as repeatedly confirmed by the IAEA. So the process initiated by that deal, if brought to conclusion, would have deprived Iran of three decisive deterrence assets at her disposal. Much like Libya when it entered agreements with the west, giving up its nuclear program and much of its military strength. We saw how that ended for Tripoli.

Iran's economy is trash. A deal would relieve sanctions off of Iran and allow it to fund a lot more terror.

No agreement. We won't respect any. We will end Iranian reign of terror across all of the Middle East.

Doubt it lol. Iran is perfectly capable of making nukes or acquiring them from Russia, North Korea etc. They just don't want to provoke the Americans. As I said many many times, Iranian leadership is smarter than the forum users here.

I just don't agree with their defense procurement. I think they failed to modernze the military and are too stubborn in their ways to make the necessary reforms.

They aren't capable because we would always sabotage them. We would use nuclear weapons ourselves if it's the only way to prevent it. Rest assured Iran will never have nuclear weapons.

And yes, I am well aware Iran doesn't want to provoke the US, they know damn well that if they do a coalition will form and wipe them out.

Correct.
But Iran is not some geographically isolated nation; perhaps if Iran was some relatively remote island nation then nukes were an option. But Iran is too close to several very important countries of the world, including America's allies in Europe and Israel.
Iran's biggest deterrent is Iran's conventional assets targeting Israel and you know Americans can't accept Israel's economy shut down even for a week or Israelis dying. And therefore, much like North Korea which can destroy Seoul by conventional weaponry as a deterrent, Iran has Israel in under great threat.

We don't fear Iranian conventional weapons.

The following war, we will not care about collateral damage. Especially Shia collateral damage.

 

[TriptiD]

Well, obviously, the US national interests are not compatible with the present regime in Iran exercising strategic influence outside its borders, especially against Israel. So, it will be silly to assume that Washington will normalize relations if Iranian policies are unchanged.

However, in my opinion, there is a via medium between complete normalization of relations and the present situation where there is little engagement. It is a question of being practical. There are other countries that have bad historical experience with the US who are now co-operating with them. For example, the US tried to subject India to nuclear blackmail in 1971, but the relationship has come a long way since and India has been able to balance its relationship with the US with that with Russia and China ( despite conflict at the border). The US still leads the UN and even the EU and India, which are allied with the US, but more sympathetic to Iran cannot do much to get the sanctions mitigated if Iran adopts a maximalist approach. You don't have to trust the Americans to work out tactical arrangements with them that can help Iran. Even countries at war with each other do that.

Also, some Iranians may think Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden are all the same and it is true that on what they consider core US interests, their positions will not be different. However, you will get a better tactical deal from Biden than from Trump.

This was mostly a rhetoric endeavor meant to ensure that the USA regime wouldn't stop at the JCPOA but would keep up the pressure on Iran until JCPOA's II and III are agreed upon, in other terms until Iran is stripped of her main instruments of deterrence.

Another thing to know is that the goal pursued vis à vis Iran by so-called hawks and doves in Washington or Tel Aviv is identical. What they might differ upon are the means best suited to achieve that aim. This was actually admitted to a couple of years ago by a group of leading Democrats party members in a joint declaration they signed, stressing how their aims overlap with those of their Republican counterparts when it comes to Iran.

Advocates of so-called negotiations with Iran placed faith in the process inaugurated by the JCPOA as a way to gradually disarm Iran. They believed the liberal factions in Iran would be able to maintain enough influence to go along until the planned process is concluded. By contrast critics of this approach were wary that Iran might end up benefiting from sanctions relief without actually giving up her key defensive assets, postulating that revolutionary factions in Iran would preserve the upper hand in this regard. The final objective however was still a shared one.

Also I can assure you that zionists are even more dissatisfied with Iran stockpiling 60% enriched uranium like she's doing now that the JCPOA is void.



Oil does not make up the bulk of Iran's revenues anymore. Also as said, trade with Iran in general continued to be vehemently obstructed by the USA and its secondary sanctions, not to mention agents of the Washington regime directly threatening business entities in Europe and elsewhere to refrain from dealing with Iran or else.



See above. The alternative to the JCPOA was Trump's so-called "maximum pressure" campaign. What exactly did the zionists get out that?

Zionists labeled the JCPOA a "bad deal" because the zio-American intention from the outset had been to toughen its terms for Iran and to go on neutralizing Iran's missile power and regional alliance system.

The JCPOA was a slippery slope, an intended (from the zio-American perspective) springboard towards follow-on deals which would have seen Iran part with much of her defensive and power projection tools.

Had it not been for an institution called Supreme Leadership, as well as one called IRGC, politicians in charge back then would have ceded so much during negotiations that Netanyahu himself would have ended up calling it the best deal in history.

One needs to separate instrumentalized rhetoric from actual policy here, while taking into account the dynamics underlying the JCPOA.

Here some instructive reads related to the subject:

For Israel, new Iran deal perhaps better than no deal at all​

https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2022/04/israel-new-iran-deal-perhaps-better-no-deal-all

Why Israel (Sort of) Misses the Iran Deal​

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org...srael-sort-misses-iran-deal[/URL [HR][/HR]

http://

Jews want war between Iran and America.

They can destroy Iran infrastructures with American blood and money.

They did it with iraq in past.

That may be true, but not all Americans want that. And even among Israelis, some like Netanyahu are more aggressive. The question is whether Iran can work with the ones least hostile towards it to work out a favorable deal, or will it wait till the most hostile decide to attack it.

 

[Mehdipersian]

lol you think Iran can beat USA in a war? You got to be kidding me.


Actually you are a moron. Do you honestly think Iran can beat USA in a war?

Iran only has a population of 80 million.

USA has a population of 333 million people! LOL!

Why you even compare Iran and American population?!?
Is this even important for war between two separate country in two different continent?!?

Your comments are meaningless.

Iran's economy is trash. A deal would relieve sanctions off of Iran and allow it to fund a lot more terror.

No agreement. We won't respect any. We will end Iranian reign of terror across all of the Middle East.


They aren't capable because we would always sabotage them. We would use nuclear weapons ourselves if it's the only way to prevent it. Rest assured Iran will never have nuclear weapons.

And yes, I am well aware Iran doesn't want to provoke the US, they know damn well that if they do a coalition will form and wipe them out.


We don't fear Iranian conventional weapons.

The following war, we will not care about collateral damage. Especially Shia collateral damage.

It is a Big mouth for little poor israhell.
Hezbullah is enough for you they can destroy your fake country full of fake jews.

 

[SalarHaqq]

lol you think Iran can beat USA in a war? You got to be kidding me.


Actually you are a moron. Do you honestly think Iran can beat USA in a war?

Iran only has a population of 80 million.

USA has a population of 333 million people! LOL!

Too simplistic statement. I'd suggest enlarging the scope of your considerations - giving the article in the opening post a try would form a good start.

---

They turned your biggest general into a Shawarma skewer and could do the same to every other person in Iran

Iranian-backed groups eliminated at least a thousand USA occupation forces in the region. Iran could replicate the same against tens of thousands of invading American troops.

Iran's economy is trash.

Incomparably better than assumed by fanboys of Iran's enemies.

A deal would relieve sanctions off of Iran and allow it to fund a lot more terror.

There was a deal. It did nothing of the sort. And Iran isn't funding "terror" but legitimate liberation movements. Cultivating terrorist proxies is what the zio-American empire is specializing in.

No agreement.

Iran's no longer interested in skewed agreements designed to soften her up for military aggression, which is what the JCPOA was all about.

We won't respect any.

Now that's what I call an admission. From someone who only one post earlier was attempting to project this same type of behaviour on Iran, here comes open recognition that Tel Aviv is actually the one which sabotages international agreements.

We will end Iranian reign of terror across all of the Middle East.

Read, Iranian support for Moslem self-determination. But yes, keep dreaming.

And yes, I am well aware Iran doesn't want to provoke the US, they know damn well that if they do a coalition will form and wipe them out.

Measured against past activities by countries Washington launched military aggression against, Iran's nearly four and a half decades of challenging USA hegemony and harming imperialist interests not merely in West Asia but well beyond, represents a full blown casus belli in Washington's thinking.

"Provocation" means nothing much if not put into context. What's amusing to note then, is that when it comes to Iran the threshold for conflict-inducing provocation is suddenly heightened manifold compared to Iraq, Libya and so on. I wonder why.

We don't fear Iranian conventional weapons.

The following war, we will not care about collateral damage. Especially Shia collateral damage.

Iranian conventional weapons along with a few other assets Iran is endowed with are the reason why Lebanon has been spared from renewed zionist occupation and aggression for seventeen years already, and why the only thing thrown at Iran herself in this regard has been hot air.

---

Well, obviously, the US national interests are not compatible with the present regime in Iran exercising strategic influence outside its borders, especially against Israel. So, it will be silly to assume that Washington will normalize relations if Iranian policies are unchanged.

However, in my opinion, there is a via medium between complete normalization of relations and the present situation where there is little engagement. It is a question of being practical. There are other countries that have bad historical experience with the US who are now co-operating with them. For example, the US tried to subject India to nuclear blackmail in 1971, but the relationship has come a long way since and India has been able to balance its relationship with the US with that with Russia and China ( despite conflict at the border). The US still leads the UN and even the EU and India, which are allied with the US, but more sympathetic to Iran cannot do much to get the sanctions mitigated if Iran adopts a maximalist approach. You don't have to trust the Americans to work out tactical arrangements with them that can help Iran. Even countries at war with each other do that.

Also, some Iranians may think Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden are all the same and it is true that on what they consider core US interests, their positions will not be different. However, you will get a better tactical deal from Biden than from Trump.

That may be true, but not all Americans want that. And even among Israelis, some like Netanyahu are more aggressive. The question is whether Iran can work with the ones least hostile towards it to work out a favorable deal, or will it wait till the most hostile decide to attack it.

See, this has been tried and it was called JCPOA. It led nowhere, solely due to Washington refusing to keep its side of the agreement. And I mean the Obama regime to begin with, seeing how it slapped new sanctions on Iran in contravention of the JCPOA right after it went into effect. Meaning that from the outset, the Americans had no intention of making tangible concessions to Iran.

You say practical understandings are possible with Democrats, well I just showed why they aren't. And that's because Washington's view of Iran is different from how they perceive those other countries you cited including (former) rivals. It has to do with the history of Iran-USA relations all the way back to the 1953 CIA-orchestrated coup which toppled Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mosaddeq, as well as with the zionist factor which exerts a lot of influence on the American establishment as a whole.

From the standpoint of the USA regime, Iran in this framework is no different than Libya, in other terms no broader agreement with Tehran is conceivable other than one which would completely disarm the Islamic Republic and therefore expose Iran to military aggression.

Any deal below that level of comprehensiveness would be akin to the recent prisoner swap, which had a limited economic and nuclear dimension as well. But nothing more.

As for hawkish administrations in Washington, absent a drastic shift in the balance of power they're not going to attack. The USA regime has no sustainable (cost-wise) military option against Iran, else it wouldn't have waited this long to resort to it.

 

[LegionnairE]

They aren't capable because we would always sabotage them. We would use nuclear weapons ourselves if it's the only way to prevent it. Rest assured Iran will never have nuclear weapons.

You can't, you would lose your standing in the world that you so meticulously crafted over the decades since WWII. All that victim narrative, Germany giving you free warships, USA giving you aid each year. All that would stop. Your leaders can't risk that.

Beny, you're just like the Iranians on this forum with this insanity. Seems like a match made in heaven.
I should make myself scarce and watch you fight with popcorn in hand.

 

[Beny Karachun]

You can't, you would lose your standing in the world that you so meticulously crafted over the decades since WWII. All that victim narrative, Germany giving you free warships, USA giving you aid each year. All that would stop. Your leaders can't risk that.

Beny, you're just like the Iranians on this forum with this insanity. Seems like a match made in heaven.
I should make myself scarce and watch you fight with popcorn in hand.

Iran having nukes means the end of Israel. We have nothing to lose.
You think Israel has nukes for nothing? You're the insane one if you think we will rather let Iran have nukes.

Nuclear weapons will be used if needed, in fact nuclear earth penetrators might be the only option for Iranian deep underground nuclear sites.

 

[ReasonableStar75]

I really hope Iran be more tougher than ever and annunce Iranian nukes with a show of force.

I think Iran is already nuclear capable, and has nukes, but it s needed to give the world the message of force. It s neccessary.

US and Israel would be reduced to nothing, they have not margin of action on Iran, and this message would demoralize all their simpatizers. This has an enormous impact and echo that diminishes US and Israel power around the world.

Iran must do that, abandon stupid NPT treaty, and JCPOA useless deals, and push for nuclear powerfull missiles and bomb, and proliferation.

If war happens happens, Iran must warn sternly to any one who dares to say something. If war happens happens, Not more appeasement, Iran has nukes, and must show it.

It s not a sin to have nukes in Islam, this is a lie.

 

[Meengla]

Iranian conventional weapons along with a few other assets Iran is endowed with are the reason why Lebanon has been spared from renewed zionist occupation and aggression for seventeen years already, and why the only thing thrown at Iran herself in this regard has been hot air.

Good point.
It is not for nothing that there was such a strong focus to topple Bashar al Assad: He provides Iran a path from Iran to Lebanon. Too bad, Turks and some Arab countries fell for what was basically a Proect-Israel project but I am glad they have realized their mistake.

Iran having nukes means the end of Israel. We have nothing to lose.
You think Israel has nukes for nothing? You're the insane one if you think we will rather let Iran have nukes.
Nuclear weapons will be used if needed, in fact nuclear earth penetrators might be the only option for Iranian deep underground nuclear sites.

Firstly, Iran getting nukes doesn't mean 'the end of Israel'. It would only mean that Iran can have greatly enhanced deterrent options. Secondly, you will not ever nuke Iran unless some nukes were dropped on Israel. Iranians are not suicidal to even detonate a small nuke in/on Israel--they know it is not the little cry-baby Israel but the Americans who will respond.
BTW, many months ago I had advised you to learn to live in the Middle East as part of that region instead of some 'Outpost of the West' in Middle East. On one hand, you claim to belong to the Middle East. And then you consider yourself Europeans--the same Christian Europe who slaughtered you over thousands of years. Your duplicitous opportunism is obvious to the world.

 

[Beny Karachun]

Firstly, Iran getting nukes doesn't mean 'the end of Israel'. It would only mean that Iran can have greatly enhanced deterrent options. Secondly, you will not ever nuke Iran unless some nukes were dropped on Israel. Iranians are not suicidal to even detonate a small nuke in/on Israel--they know it is not the little cry-baby Israel but the Americans who will respond.
BTW, many months ago I had advised you to learn to live in the Middle East as part of that region instead of some 'Outpost of the West' in Middle East. On one hand, you claim to belong to the Middle East. And then you consider yourself Europeans--the same Christian Europe who slaughtered you over thousands of years. Your duplicitous opportunism is obvious to the world.

That's what you think

And I'm telling you, Iran will get nuked way before it ever will have nukes.

 

[lydian fall]

Soon or late Seyyed Khorasani will wipe out jews

Seyed Khorasani - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hadith of black flags - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's what you think

And I'm telling you, Iran will get nuked way before it ever will have nukes.

Iran is multiple times bigger than israel

It is easier for Iran and Iran's proxies and resistance axis to wipe out millions occupiers jews rather than filthy jews wipe out 17th largest country in the world

Learn your lessons birdbrain jew in your open prison which is surrounded by Iran from everywhere

You can't even handle Hamas & PIJ let alone Hezbollah and let's not even think about Iran

It is just matter of time that you jews barefooted run away to Africa and maybe Europe !

 

[BHAN85]

Correct.
But Iran is not some geographically isolated nation; perhaps if Iran was some relatively remote island nation then nukes were an option. But Iran is too close to several very important countries of the world, including America's allies in Europe and Israel.
Iran's biggest deterrent is Iran's conventional assets targeting Israel and you know Americans can't accept Israel's economy shut down even for a week or Israelis dying. And therefore, much like North Korea which can destroy Seoul by conventional weaponry as a deterrent, Iran has Israel in under great threat.

Bad for Eurasia, Good for America, vassals "allies" are not important.

 

[DoubleYouSee]

That's what you think

And I'm telling you, Iran will get nuked way before it ever will have nukes.

Could you tell us,by who!

 

[LegionnairE]

Iran having nukes means the end of Israel. We have nothing to lose.
You think Israel has nukes for nothing? You're the insane one if you think we will rather let Iran have nukes.

Nuclear weapons will be used if needed, in fact nuclear earth penetrators might be the only option for Iranian deep underground nuclear sites.

Soviet Union having nukes didn't mean the end of US.

Having nukes is one thing, having the balls to use it is another.