What's new

Why is US obsessed with Iran

Russia complicates the matter , otherwise US would have been in Iran already - I think Russia has made it clear more advancement around the regionor basis and Russia would be building bases in Canada:coffee:

Lets compare the size of the USA Air Force

USA AIR FORCE
Total Aircraft: 18,169 [2003]
Helicopters: 4,593 [2003]
Serviceable Airports: 14,947 [2007]

Russia Air Force
AIR FORCE
Total Aircraft: 3,888 [2005]
Helicopters: 2,625 [2003]
Serviceable Airports: 1,260 [2007]

We wont even go into quality and experience.

Just for the fun of it heres Irans
IRANS AIRFORCE
AIR FORCE
Total Aircraft: 84 [2006]
Helicopters: 84 [2006]
Serviceable Airports: 331 [2007
 
Lets compare the size of the USA Air Force

USA AIR FORCE
Total Aircraft: 18,169 [2003]
Helicopters: 4,593 [2003]
Serviceable Airports: 14,947 [2007]

Russia Air Force
AIR FORCE
Total Aircraft: 3,888 [2005]
Helicopters: 2,625 [2003]
Serviceable Airports: 1,260 [2007]

We wont even go into quality and experience.

Yes, that is precisely the reason why US went on an all-out offensive against Russia in support of Georgia, didn't it? :disagree:

You need to get a perspective boy.
 
Lets compare the size of the USA Air Force

USA AIR FORCE
Total Aircraft: 18,169 [2003]
Helicopters: 4,593 [2003]
Serviceable Airports: 14,947 [2007]

Russia Air Force
AIR FORCE
Total Aircraft: 3,888 [2005]
Helicopters: 2,625 [2003]
Serviceable Airports: 1,260 [2007]

We wont even go into quality and experience.

None of that matters the second the U.S. and Russia go to war they would nuke each other into nothing. Russia might be a former shell of itself but it still has the capability to send any country to the stone age including the U.S.
 
Last edited:
well to be balanced, Iranians are not entirely wrong. US has been instrumental in putting Shah in Iran, enticing Iran and Iraq to fight weakening them both further, encouraging Iraq to fight Kuwait, entering the region in the name of saving Kuwait, Staying in Iraq and now getting ready to target Iran. Its quite clear the Iranians have suffered enough at the hands of Americans.

This is 95% BS. The only partial truth is that the USA assisted the Iranian military in putting the Shah back on the throne. The rest is totally false.
 
Iran has one of the worlds largest proven oil reserves but a US unfriendly government so...

USA gets about 20 percent of its oil from the middle east, about 16 percent from Saudi Arabia and about 4 percent from all the rest. USA is not about to go to war over oil in the middle east. Many countries get far more oil from the middle east then the USA.

The Mullahs and Ayatollahs and Ahmadinejad of Iran provide over 90% of the funding for Muslim Terrorism in the world.

If the Mullahs, and Ayatollahs and Ahmadinejad of Iran do get their hands on nuclear weapons, they will transfer some of those nuclear weapons to the Muslim Terrorists.

If you like Muslim Terrorists using car bombs to blow up buildings you will love Muslim Terrorists with nuclear weapns to blow up entire cities.

However those of us who are sane and rational do not want Muslim Terrorists with nuclear weapons.

The only way to prevent the Muslim Terrorists from getting nuclear weapons is to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

To put it on a simpler level, that is easier for you to understand, in The United States of America we permit law abiding citizens to own firearms, however we do not permit Felons to own firearms.

We should no more permit the Mullahs and Ayatollahs and Ahmadinejad of Iran and the Muslim Terrorists to have Nuclear Weapons than we would permit Felons to own firearms.

Its not just the USA that does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons, no country in the middle east wants Iran to have Nuclear weapons an once Iran has Nuclear Weapons other countries in the middle east will develope nuclear weapons rather then be at the mercy of Iran.

Another problem is Israels Samson Doctrine,,hundreds of nuclear weapons, includeing large thermonuclear bombs and Nutron bombs that they are threating to destroy the entire middle east with if they are destroyed.

I think its the road to Armagedon
 
Fearinhight 911 showed how the goverment andstate owned media has controal on the typical American mindset to let America invade Iraq..... Same gose for Iran that is the western properganda and knowig they still refuse to belive
 
Fearinhight 911 showed how the goverment andstate owned media has controal on the typical American mindset to let America invade Iraq..... Same gose for Iran that is the western properganda and knowig they still refuse to belive


This movie was totally fiction. If you think it was fact then you are delusional. It was a Hollywood Movie!!!! It was made to make money off of anti-Americans like you.
 
This is 95% BS. The only partial truth is that the USA assisted the Iranian military in putting the Shah back on the throne. The rest is totally false.

handshake300.jpg


The Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) was one of a series of crises during an era of upheaval in the Middle East: revolution in Iran, occupation of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by militant students, invasion of the Great Mosque in Mecca by anti-royalist Islamicists, the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan, and internecine fighting among Syrians, Israelis, and Palestinians in Lebanon. The war followed months of rising tension between the Iranian Islamic republic and secular nationalist Iraq. In mid-September 1980 Iraq attacked, in the mistaken belief that Iranian political disarray would guarantee a quick victory.

The international community responded with U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire and for all member states to refrain from actions contributing in any way to the conflict's continuation. The Soviets, opposing the war, cut off arms exports to Iran and to Iraq, its ally under a 1972 treaty (arms deliveries resumed in 1982). The U.S. had already ended, when the shah fell, previously massive military sales to Iran. In 1980 the U.S. broke off diplomatic relations with Iran because of the Tehran embassy hostage crisis; Iraq had broken off ties with the U.S. during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

The U.S. was officially neutral regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and claimed that it armed neither side. Iran depended on U.S.-origin weapons, however, and sought them from Israel, Europe, Asia, and South America. Iraq started the war with a large Soviet-supplied arsenal, but needed additional weaponry as the conflict wore on.

Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)

Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.

The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.

One of these directives from Reagan, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 99, signed on July 12, 1983, is available only in a highly redacted version. It reviews U.S. regional interests in the Middle East and South Asia, and U.S. objectives, including peace between Israel and the Arabs, resolution of other regional conflicts, and economic and military improvements, "to strengthen regional stability." It deals with threats to the U.S., strategic planning, cooperation with other countries, including the Arab states, and plans for action. An interdepartmental review of the implications of shifting policy in favor of Iraq was conducted following promulgation of the directive.

By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints. It intensified its accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked for a United Nations Security Council investigation.

The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war.
The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well.

What was the Reagan administration's response? A State Department account indicates that the administration had decided to limit its "efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results." But the department noted in late November 1983 that "with the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq ha[d] become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves of CW for further use. Given its desperation to end the war, Iraq may again use lethal or incapacitating CW, particularly if Iran threatens to break through Iraqi lines in a large-scale attack" [Document 25]. The State Department argued that the U.S. needed to respond in some way to maintain the credibility of its official opposition to chemical warfare, and recommended that the National Security Council discuss the issue.

Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflects the administration's priorities: it calls for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and directs the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take appropriate measures to respond to tensions in the area. It states, "Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic." It does not mention chemical weapons [Document 26].

Soon thereafter, Donald Rumsfeld (who had served in various positions in the Nixon and Ford administrations, including as President Ford's defense secretary, and at this time headed the multinational pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle & Co.) was dispatched to the Middle East as a presidential envoy. His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting.


Rumsfeld also met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, "the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests." Rumsfeld affirmed the Reagan administration's "willingness to do more" regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but "made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights." He then moved on to other U.S. concerns. Later, Rumsfeld was assured by the U.S. interests section that Iraq's leadership had been "extremely pleased" with the visit, and that "Tariq Aziz had gone out of his way to praise Rumsfeld as a person" .

Rumsfeld returned to Baghdad in late March 1984. By this time, the U.S. had publicly condemned Iraq's chemical weapons use, stating, "The United States has concluded that the available evidence substantiates Iran's charges that Iraq used chemical weapons". Briefings for Rumsfeld's meetings noted that atmospherics in Iraq had deteriorated since his December visit because of Iraqi military reverses and because "bilateral relations were sharply set back by our March 5 condemnation of Iraq for CW use, despite our repeated warnings that this issue would emerge sooner or later". Rumsfeld was to discuss with Iraqi officials the Reagan administration's hope that it could obtain Export-Import Bank credits for Iraq, the Aqaba pipeline, and its vigorous efforts to cut off arms exports to Iran.

According to an affidavit prepared by one of Rumsfeld's companions during his Mideast travels, former NSC staff member Howard Teicher, Rumsfeld also conveyed to Iraq an offer from Israel to provide assistance, which was rejected.

Conclusion

The current Bush administration discusses Iraq in starkly moralistic terms to further its goal of persuading a skeptical world that a preemptive and premeditated attack on Iraq could and should be supported as a "just war." The documents included in this briefing book reflect the realpolitik that determined this country's policies during the years when Iraq was actually employing chemical weapons.

Actual rather than rhetorical opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve U.S. interests; instead, the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent an Iranian victory.

Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The Iraqi government's repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.


THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE

bbc07_m3table.png
 
Last edited:
Iran could not defeat Iraq in a eight and half year war with Iran being next door and lost nearly a million people trying. The USA traveled 5000 miles took out Iraqi Military in three weeks and lost 120 soldiers doing it. At the present time Iran is surrounded by USA bases, there are now half million USA combat vetrans. Iran is more divided then Iraq, its on the point of having an revolution right now.....perhaps Iran would put up more of a fight but I doubt it. If you think the USA looked like fools ask Saddam and Sons.

perhaps ur right that iran is not strong enough to last long against US and like u said US captured iraq in few weeks, the reason was that iraqi soldiers surrendered and didn't put much of a fight BUT i dont think this would repeat again! as far as i kno irani soldiers aren't like their neighbor iraq......they wont surrender that easily
 
perhaps ur right that iran is not strong enough to last long against US and like u said US captured iraq in few weeks, the reason was that iraqi soldiers surrendered and didn't put much of a fight BUT i dont think this would repeat again! as far as i kno irani soldiers aren't like their neighbor iraq......they wont surrender that easily

The USA is not going to war with Iran especially with Obama being president so any thing we say is just speculation as to what might happen if the USA did go to war with Iran.

The smart bomb has changed the nature of warfare, after Iranian troops sit under hundreds of thousands smart bombs raining down 24/7 there would not be much fight left, occupation would be the difficult part, I doubt if America has the stomach for that.
 
It's pretty obvious why the U.S is interested in Iran. It has a crazy unstable government who has threatened to wipe countries off the face of the earth and that government is now making nukes.

Infact, it's not just the U.S who is interested it's every single country around the world that is in range of being hit from these lunatics.

It's seriously like letting Mental asylum patients have weapons, you just wouldn't do it.
 
PS: The mistake to shoot down a passenger plane belonging to iran I mean I think the naval radars are quite sensitive to know difference between a military jet and a civilian plane - I think that act alone , balances out the bad both countries have done to each other (Allegedly speaking) time to move on
Hmmm...I take it you speak from extensive personal experience...??? :rolleyes:
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom