What would escalate war with Iran?

[Etiene]

I'm just saying what I think will happen. So you think Iran can win against US? And I got the numbers from how much US used in Iraq. Iran is only slightly stronger than what Iraq was in 2003.

Iranian strategy is not to win a war. It's to make sure it never happens.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

I don't believe this.

But I do agree that when Israel attacks, US will get automatically involved but I don't see how this will lead to WWIII.

it will be worse than WWIII because it will be a multi-front war.....some devout Shiias see Iran as a culturally and spiritually important country; so you will have Shiias spanning from Yemen, Saudi, Kuwait, Bahrain, Pakistan, Lebnan, India and elsewhere probably volunteer to go fight -- meaning those countries would be indirectly embroiled.

on the other hand, Russia and China could play a role in any hostilities......the Western camp will be hard-pressed to ensure their allies in the region are safe -- so massive deployments towards Hormuz would take place.....any attack on those deployments would yield further escalations.

it will be noting less than WWIII bro....but that is my own feeling.

and don't forgot what this war will do to international prices of oil/petroleum. They will go through the roof. The whole world economy would face major shocks.


ask yourself --- they've been talking about striking Iran for over 4-5 years now. WHYYYY havent they done it yet???

 

[A1Kaid]

I don't believe this.

But I do agree that when Israel attacks, US will get automatically involved but I don't see how this will lead to WWIII.

It won't lead to World War III just as invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, or Georgia for that matter didn't lead to WWIII. No country is going to come to the defense of Iran however you may well have a coalition against Iran for example US, Israel, KSA (providing territory and airspace), and possibly other Gulf states as they would like more influence in the Gulf. So this isn't going to lead to WWIII, as for countries supporting Iran, Russia and China may support politically or at the UNSC but that is about it they won't even dare send weapons to Iran besides it would be too late once such a war began.

Obviously Allies forces would have air supremacy (higher than aerial superiority) over Iran, Iran's best bet is to bleed out invading forces in unconventional warfare and guerrilla tactics. Other than that there really is no hope for Iran, they can however fire hundreds of rockets at Israel but likely some or many of them will be destroyed in flight. Besides NATO is setting up missile defense shield in Turkiye so any missiles coming from Iran can be neutralized.

 

[atatwolf]

Iran is only slightly stronger than what Iraq was in 2003.

LOL, is this really true?

 

[atatwolf]

It won't lead to World War III just as invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, or Georgia for that matter didn't lead to WWIII. No country is going to come to the defense of Iran however you may well have a coalition against Iran for example US, Israel, KSA (providing territory and airspace), and possibly other Gulf states as they would like more influence in the Gulf. So this isn't going to lead to WWIII, as for countries supporting Iran, Russia and China may support politically or at the UNSC but that is about it they won't even dare send weapons to Iran besides it would be too late once such a war began.

Obviously Allies forces would have air supremacy (higher than aerial superiority) over Iran, Iran's best bet is to bleed out invading forces in unconventional warfare and guerrilla tactics. Other than that there really is no hope for Iran, they can however fire hundreds of rockets at Israel but likely some or many of them will be destroyed in flight. Besides NATO is setting up missile defense shield in Turkiye so any missiles coming from Iran can be neutralized.

Yea, people who say it will start WWIII are dreaming, it is wishful thinking, not backed up by logical sense. Russia and China will never enter war for Iran. As somebody suggested some shia sympathizers abroad will travel to Iran to fight but that would be all. And I don't know how some Shia jihadist will make a chance against strongest army in the world with high tech weapons. I would say those fly-in Shia jihadist from abroad are zero factor. How can they make a chance or make a difference remains a question.

 

[Mahmoud_EGY]

first we must know what the west want do they want to occupy ? like iraq or do they want to strike iran
either way the price will be high for the invaders and iran and this will not be good for everyone
iran saudi isreal the west all will have losses and the whole world economy will be effected even now the world economy is not like it was and it is still recovering

 

[A1Kaid]

Yea, people who say it will start WWIII are dreaming, it is wishful thinking, not backed up by logical sense. Russia and China will never enter war for Iran. As somebody suggested some shia sympathizers abroad will travel to Iran to fight but that would be all. And I don't know how some Shia jihadist will make a chance against strongest army in the world with high tech weapons. I would say those fly-in Shia jihadist from abroad are zero factor. How can they make a chance or make a difference?

Exactly Shia civilians in countries throughout the region are a zero factor in a conventional sense. In Iraq the Sunnis living in other regions did have some affect in the sense they came in from other countries and strengthened the insurgency and made the Iraqi insurgency potent and caused relatively high casualties for NATO troops throughout 2005-2008 +/- years. That is the only affect Shia civilians may have is insurgency affect, but World War III? That is just absurd. In order to have World War III you must have multiple countries from multiple regions on polar sides at conventional war.

first we must know what the west want do they want to occupy ? like iraq or do they want to strike iran
either way the price will be high for the invaders and iran and this will not be good for everyone
iran saudi isreal the west all will have losses and the whole world economy will be effected even now the world economy is not like it was and it is still recovering

No, first you need to prepare your defense and strength and power of your nation, then you can ask these questions much later.

 

[atatwolf]

Exactly Shia civilians in countries throughout the region are a zero factor in a conventional sense. In Iraq the Sunnis living in other regions did have some affect in the sense they came in from other countries and strengthened the insurgency and made the Iraqi insurgency potent and caused relatively high casualties for NATO troops throughout 2005-2008 +/- years. That is the only affect Shia civilians may have is insurgency affect, but World War III? That is just absurd. In order to have World War III you must have multiple countries from multiple regions on polar sides at conventional war.

It is not like fighting in Syria where fly-in Shia fighters are fighting against Sunni rebels.

When fly-in Shia fighters come to Iran they will face U.S army. High tech equipment, newest jets/helicopters, and who has highly trained troops, communcation and intelligence.

Indeed Jihadist would be a zero factor in the equation.

 

[bozorgmehr]

Apparently you are a outcast living in Canada. USA wont be here for a long time. These are temporary times. No matter how USA struggles to create Kürdistan and to revive Persian nationalism, it lives on borrowed time.

You are a very astute observer, ain't ya? Now, as an outcast, I'd like to ask you why the US would wanna do that for us? Would that be a reward for humiliating them every chance we get and generally being thorn in their rear end for the past 3 decades or so? Or is that out of their sheer love of Persian poetry?

 

[Etiene]

It is not like fighting in Syria where fly-in Shia fighters are fighting against Sunni rebels.

When fly-in Shia fighters come to Iran they will face U.S army. High tech equipment, newest jets/helicopters, and who has highly trained troops, communcation and intelligence.

Indeed Jihadist would be a zero factor in the equation.

What's the point of all this?

 

[Serpentine]

Those who compare Iraq in 2003 with Iran in 2012 simply have no slightest sense of military world.Iran's strategy in war with that of Iraq,are 2 worlds apart.Iraqi army practically did not fight any of U.S forces and many of them surrendered in first 3 days.
In southern parts of Iraq,near Basra, where some local Shias resisted U.S invasion, it took U.S army 2 weeks to capture those areas,and those who were fighting were not even trained soldiers.

In conventional military,Iran is no match for U.S,no country in the world is,not even China and Russia.But Iran's military doctorine is based on deterrence not offensive and most of it is purely asymmetric. Iran has one of the largest asymmetric warfare and armies in the world,we all know how that ends for U.S. Vietnam is a very good example.
Iran's strategy is not to win a war against U.S, it's preventing them from launching an attack which has been successful by now,and then, inflicting most damage to U.S and those who help it in war.

About Arabs helping U.S in a war, it's pure nonsense. They simply don't have balls.One missile in each of their cities, their oil facilities destroyed and they simply go back to what their ancestors did in deserts.Arabs are not stupid to do such thing.
At the end, I say there will be no war, mark my word.It's in no one's interest.

P.S: If strait of Hormuz is closed even for one week and is polluted with mines, the struggling world economy will go down.There is a reason neocons are backing off from touching Iran.Sanctions are all they can do for now.

 

[bozorgmehr]

Those who compare Iraq in 2003 with Iran in 2012 simply have no slightest sense of military world.Iran's strategy in war with that of Iraq,are 2 worlds apart.Iraqi army practically did not fight any of U.S forces and many of them surrendered in first 3 days.
In southern parts of Iraq,near Basra, where some local Shias resisted U.S invasion, it took U.S army 2 weeks to capture those areas,and those who were fighting were not even trained soldiers.

In conventional military,Iran is no match for U.S,no country in the world is,not even China and Russia.But military strategic is based on deterrence not offensive and most of it is purely asymmetric. Iran has one of the largest asymmetric warfare and armies in the world,we all know how that ends for U.S.. Vietnam is a very good example.
Iran's strategy is not to win a war against U.S, it's preventing them from launching an attack which has been successful by not,and then, inflicting most damage to U.S and those who help it in war.

About Arabs helping U.S in a war, it's pure nonsense. They simply don't have balls.One missile in each of their cities, their oil facilities destroyed and they simply go back to what their ancestors did in deserts.Arabs are not stupid to do such thing.
At the end, I say there will be no war, mark my word.It's in no one's interest.

You said flower!

 

[Alienoz_TR]

You are a very astute observer, ain't ya? Now, as an outcast, I'd like to ask you why the US would wanna do that for us? Would that be a reward for humiliating them every chance we get and generally being thorn in their rear end for the past 3 decades or so? Or is that out of their sheer love of Persian poetry?

Persian kingdom with their non Islamic Persian nationalism was the key ally of USA till 1979. Right? Even you were forced to emigrate, remember?

Now Cold War is over. Bear lost. New enemy is Islam and new aim is petroleum and energy lines. Divide and rule. Kurds and Persians are the weakest chains, easy to control and easy to use against Arabs and Turks.

USA is stuck in this mess, losing blood day by day. Well not so unfortunate, I might add. I personally think Kurds and Persians are more clever than Arabs. But money and manpower is on the Arabs' side. Turks need some more time to realize whats going on around here. I dont wanna comment on my people's intelligence.

 

[Etiene]

@ Era

Well said.

 

[Serpentine]

Persian kingdom with their non Islamic Persian nationalism was the key ally of USA till 1979. Right? Even you were forced to emigrate, remember?

Now Cold War is over. Bear lost. New enemy is Islam and new aim is petroleum and energy lines. Divide and rule. Kurds and Persians are the weakest chains, easy to control and easy to use against Arabs and Turks.

USA is stuck in this mess, losing blood day by day. Well not so unfortunate, I might add. I personally think Kurds and Persians are more clever than Arabs. But money and manpower is on the Arabs' side. Turks need some more time to realize whats going on around here. I dont wanna comment on my people's intelligence.

Extremism, both in nationalism and religion, has spoiled your thoughts and ability to judge and conclude my friend, no offense intended.