What's new

Why is US obsessed with Iran

If Iran needs to be invaded it will be invaded(personally I don't think it is worth it)...no one can do a thing about it.Least of all Russia.

Good...that you learnt that Saudi Arabia does not contribute 25% of the oil to the US.The ME as a whole does not contribute 25%.

And there have been no pro war demonstration in the US. Never has been for a long long time.

Good that you learned that US cannot live without middle east and are just denying that 20% is not significant!

:rofl::rofl:


Yep, that is why NK was invaded and the iran sanctions were watered down. LOL
:rofl: :rofl:

You need perspective.

:rofl::rofl:
 
.
Good that you learned that US cannot live without middle east and are just denying that 20% is not significant!

:rofl::rofl:


Yep, that is why NK was invaded and the iran sanctions were watered down. LOL
:rofl: :rofl:

You need perspective.

:rofl::rofl:


Did you not say 25% from Saudi Arabia..oops?


US can live fine without the 20% ME oil.The continental US has a lot of oil none of which has even been explored.

Who want to invade NK...what do they have other than some starving millions?
 
Last edited:
.
Did you not say 25% from Saudi Arabia..oops?


Who want to invade NK...what do they have other than some starving millions?

There were empty threats to NK and were not carried forward because of Chinese pressure. I'm not your history teacher. Like I said, get a perspective. :rofl:
 
.
There were empty threats to NK and were not carried forward because of Chinese pressure. I'm not your history teacher. Like I said, get a perspective. :rofl:

The cold war is over...no one cares about North Korea other than South Korea.For the US there is no gain from doing anything about NK.It is China's problem.

Good that you learnt to count...20% oil from entire ME..not 25% from Saudi Arabia.
 
.
The cold war is over...no one cares about North Korea other than South Korea.For the US there is no gain from doing anything about NK.It is China's problem.

Precisely why the US threatened to invade NK in the 21st century :rofl:

Good that you learnt to count...20% oil from entire ME..not 25% from Saudi Arabia.

LOL! You're arguing about bits and pieces now? Your behavior is pathetic, almost as pathetic as the rut US is in now economically. :rofl:
 
.
Precisely why the US threatened to invade NK in the 21st century :rofl:

Made this up also just like other things you made in this thread.

LOL! You're arguing about bits and pieces now? Your behavior is pathetic, almost as pathetic as the rut US is in now economically. :rofl:

I see that you are in the US ...maybe our condition is not so pathetic when the rest of the world would run,crawl or borrow into US if the US opens her borders even now.
 
Last edited:
.
Did you not say 25% from Saudi Arabia..oops?


US can live fine without the 20% ME oil.The continental US has a lot of oil none of which has even been explored.

Who want to invade NK...what do they have other than some starving millions?


20% of the US oil supply is a lot of Oil, during the oil price peak the US president has to request for Saudi Arabia to increase the Oil production in order to reduce the oil price spike because US citizens had issues filling their SUVs. Saying that US can live fine without ME oil is speculative, also the majority of the major oil fields near the US (including the offshore ones) are in South America.

And for NK, US invaded Iraq on the speculation of the possessions of WMD's, why doesn't the same apply for NK when we all know they are actively pursuing a WMD program? Can you honestly say Oil was not related to the decision making when war was declared on Iraq?

Anyway I doubt the US would like to engage another country in jungle warfare, it will just be like Vietnam all over again.
 
.
20% of the US oil supply is a lot of Oil, during the oil price peak the US president has to request for Saudi Arabia to increase the Oil production in order to reduce the oil price spike because US citizens had issues filling their SUVs. Saying that US can live fine without ME oil is speculative, also the majority of the major oil fields near the US (including the offshore ones) are in South America.

And for NK, US invaded Iraq on the speculation of the possessions of WMD's, why doesn't the same apply for NK when we all know they are actively pursuing a WMD program? Can you honestly say Oil was not related to the decision making when war was declared on Iraq?

Anyway I doubt the US would like to engage another country in jungle warfare, it will just be like Vietnam all over again.
I lived thru the Saudi oil so-called 'embargo' back in the 1970s. That was when US vehicles had far worse fuel mileage and we were overall far less energy efficient than today. Even so, that so-called 'embargo' did not last long. It was nothing more than a reduction in output. The long lines for gasoline in the US were more the result of minor panic and over cautious oil companies, not from a genuine shortage. In the end, that output reduction hurt the Saudis more than it hurt US and after a number of years, the Saudis admitted it.

The people that would be hurt the most by a genuine embargo would be Europe and Asia as each region import most of their oil from the ME. Global economics would collapse far quicker than any causes from an American economic crisis.

Energy: EU Crude oil imports - European commission

That is why in the global calculus, inter-states stability in the ME is more attention grabbing than anything from NKR. The North Korean regime is simply trying to survive whereas both Iran and Iraq had territorial/political expansionist ambitions, at the expense of regional stability if either deemed it necessary. So yes, at the highest level, oil is very much an important factor. But for US? Not really. In an emergency, the US, Canada and Mexico would unite and support each other economically and we can get by without the ME. The ME would rapidly collapse from lack of revenue because the oil sheiks were the ones who started their own collapse. Asian and European powers would literally battle it out in the ME to gain access to anyone left standing there.

So good luck in continuing to believe that the US is more dependent on ME oil than the rest of you.
 
.
US is dependant over oil look at iraq or you still belive that that was a mistake
 
.
There are two fold reasons why USA is obsessed with Iran.

1. Israel: It is no secret which is the most powerful lobby in United States, a lobby that even has the power over POTUS (President of United States of America). It does not help that even now Obama is backed with AIPAC. Just lately on 15/3/10 AIPAC lashed out at Obama publicly for his statements for what it calls "escalated rhetoric" on the part of the administration in response to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's push for new housing units in East Jerusalem.

"The Obama Administration's recent statements regarding the U.S. relationship with Israel are a matter of serious concern. AIPAC calls on the Administration to take immediate steps to defuse the tension with the Jewish State."

It is no secret Israel want's Iran gone for various reasons.

2. Russia: If US is able to control Iran it will also have hold over Caspian basin area which was the stronghold of USSR before it's fall. Iran is the last point US has to secure to surround Russia.
 
.
US is dependant over oil look at iraq or you still belive that that was a mistake

USA gets about 4 percent of its oil in the middle east from countries like Iraq, Kuwait, about 16 percent from Saudi Arabia, large multinational corporations buy that oil an it is distributed in the USA. About 72 percent of mid east oil goes to Japan and Europe. Its just a commodity the corporation with the most money buys it....its not majic or sacred it just oil, the USA might go to war to protect exports of oil because that could cause a world wide economic disruption that would hurt Europe and Japan far more then the USA.

This preoccupation with oil shows a lack of understanding of basic economics. Perhaps its because its the only thing in the middle east of value.
 
.
Whether any body likes it or not , US will attack Iran one day.
The "hostage crisis" was perhaps the biggest INSULT ever faced by America. That has to be avenged.
If that was the case then USA does not have a leg to stand on just on this basis. Why? Because USA is responsible for:
* Coup against democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953
* Installing the tyrannical Shah,
* Supporting Iraq (providing arms) in a bloody 8-year war against Iran,
* Shooting down an Iranian airliner in 1988,
* And trying repeatedly to topple the regime, among other things.
* Right after 9/11, Iran worked with the United States to get rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan, including paying for the Afghan troops serving under U.S. command. Iran helped establish the U.S.-backed government and then contributed more than $750 million to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Iran expressed interest in a broader dialogue in 2002 and 2003. Instead, it was labeled part of an “axis of evil” by Bush.

Thus your reasons hold no merit IMO.
How ever the Nuclear issue will be the trigger.
Iran as a signatory to NPT is full within it's right to enrich uranium for peaceful purpose. IAEA has in fact said it have not found any evidence of weapons programme and affirmed that Iran's nuclear programme is peaceful. Last year IAEA director specifically stated, "As I have said many times, and I continue to say today, the Agency has no concrete proof there is an ongoing weapons programme in Iran".

It will not be a ground invasion but sustained air and missile strikes like in Kosovo.
Contrary to popular myth, the Israeli bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor did not stop it's nuclear weapons program. In fact, it may well have started or greatly expanded it, according to Iraqi nuclear scientists who have written on it. It was not the bombing raid that stopped Saddam Hussein's nuclear program, but Operation Desert Storm (ten years later) and the IAEA inspection that followed.

The bombing of Syria facility did stop it's nuclear programme, however, it's programme was very small which is not incase of Iran. Iran is also more superior than Syria.

The posturing by Iranians has not helped matters either.
When Iran calls for "wiping out Israel" and "death to America" it is only ensuring that a war will happen.
I cannot believe even after all this time people still believe this HOAX of "Wiping out Israel". This myth derives from a remark made by Ahmadinejad:"This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be wiped off/eliminated from the pages of history/our times." The term is regime not Israel and the people living there. How is it different from Clinton's early this year remark that Iran's leadership is dictator and should be removed?

Actually, diplomacy with Iran has not been tried by the United States. It is sanctions that have been tried and failed for five years by Bush Administration. It refused to talk to Iran at all about nuclear issues because Iran did not accept U.S. demands that it first suspend all enrichment. More of the same is not going to produce different results, and trying for "crippling sanctions" will only make things worse. Even last year when Obama took office he stated he will talk with Iran without any pre-conditions but he did not and instead has resorted to same old threats and sanctions.
 
.
☪☪☪☪;969755 said:
I am surprised that US did not declare war on Iran after Embassy Hostage crisis.Technically Iran declared war on America by taking over the embassy as an embassy is considered Foreign land so US Embassy was land of United States.

US sent Delta Force to release the prisoners. Unfortunately a sandstorm in Tabas destroyed all of the American choppers . I don't know how many did survive.
 
.
The USA hates, yes hates, Iran for
#2, Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world, especially in the Middle East. Iran stands in the way of settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by a two-state solution (thru it's proxies Hizbollah and Hamas). The USA cannot extricate itself from propping up Israel until the conflict is resolved and Iran is the main obstacle to that happening.

Not so, according to Israel's Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, who said, "I am not among those who believe Iran is an existential issue for Israel. . . . Israel is strong, I don't see anyone who could pose an existential threat". Logically Israel's military capability along with US is more than Iran's land, air and sea. The history of Iran's foreign policy shows a country and a regime that has never invaded another country. In fact, the best and probably only way to make Iran an threat to Israel is for Israel to attack Iran.

What people ignore is Iran has several times offered to take part in peace talks with Iraq & Afghanistan only to be rebuffed by US & allies. Even Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in the region, said Washington and Iran could coalesce around stabilizing Afghanistan. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, echoed the sentiment in late January 2009. NATO partners, too, have sought to include Iran in Afghan strategy decisions. German lawmakers have called for the creation of a "contact group" of nations to chart a new regional course. "Such an initiative, that would include Iran, would benefit if it came to direct talks between Washington and Tehran," Andreas Schockenhoff, vice chairman of Germany's Christian Democratic Party, said in a statement reported by German media. Nothing came off it.

The United States/ Israel/ UK then helped the MKO, a terrorist group that had tried to assassinate the Iranian Supreme Leader. Given these provocations, it is not hard to accept that elements in Iran are now helping the Taliban, just as America armed the Taliban to battle the Soviet Union.
 
.
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.

1:Iran could defeat Iraq in just one year if:
It was not supported financially by so many countries
France, Brazil, UK, USSR didn't give it so many weapons or helped it with military technology
Nearly all of the Arab countries didn't send manpower
So many countries didn't give Saddam so many substances which could be used to make Chemical weapons.
Iraq didn't use "so much" chemical weapons against Iran.

In just one year, Iran repelled the Iraqi invasion. Saddam was scared and asked for a ceasefire. Iran didn't accept and started some offensives to recapture all the lost territory. Many other countries gave financial help and sold weapons to Iraq. Even with those, Iran Was successful in invasions. Then Saddam started to use chemical weapons. What really stopped Iranian offensive.

2:Iran just lost half million.
3:Iraq didn't have a proper air defense. and it's troops were mostly untrained and its weapon systems were very old. Without "any" upgrades. For example their T-72 didn't have night vision, IR tracking, fire control systems, ERA , etc. American Abrams could easily shoot Iraqi old tanks from distance thanks their fire control systems. And also Iraq didn't have any proper tactics. Like all other Arab countries. Is it too hard to take down such a country?
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom