• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. may be gearing up for Iran strike

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Before taking off for Asia Saturday, Nov. 6, President Barack Obama ordered the Pentagon not just to beef up American and NATO military pressure on Iran but to do so as conspicuously as possible, debkafile's Washington and military sources report . At a special White House security consultation last week, Obama said it was time to plant America's military option against the Iranian nuclear threat visibly and tangibly under the noses of Iran's political and military decision-makers. In the last few days, three aircraft carriers, four nuclear submarines and marine assault units have piled up opposite Iranian shores.

Early Sunday, the influential Senator Lindsey Graham (R. South Carolina), member of the Armed Services and Homeland Defense committees, said: "The US should consider sinking the Iranian navy, destroying its air force and delivering a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guards." In an address to the Halifax International Security forum, he declared "They should neuter the regime, destroy its ability to fight back and hope Iranians will take the chance to take back their government."
Source: Debka

For once Debka does not appear to be blowing smoke.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,490
Reaction score
50,037
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I've said for some time that we need to deal with Iran before things get too hot.

Unfortunately that report gives me a bad feeling that we're going to half-arse it, do a Kosovo fly-by and just screw up our shot.
 

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Iran has something the U.S. wants, so it's only a matter of time. Maybe not during Obama's admin, but some other one I'm sure.
 

Wiseone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,550
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We cannot go to war with Iran until we seriously and perhaps completely disengage from Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iranian military is far larger than Iraq's and the Taliban's combined, far stronger, better equipped, better trained, and if the Iran-Iraq War is any indication willing to do just about anything to stave off foreign invasion.

Iran is also just as big as Iraq and Afghanistan combined, and contains the worst of both worlds, high mountains scorching deserts, and more population than the two countries combined.
It has the potential to be a cluster**** so big to make Iraq or Afghanistan look like a speed bump in the post 9/11 wars.

While I don't support allowing Iran to have a nuke, going to war over it now would cause us to lose both Iraq and Afghanistan
 

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We cannot go to war with Iran until we seriously and perhaps completely disengage from Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iranian military is far larger than Iraq's and the Taliban's combined, far stronger, better equipped, better trained, and if the Iran-Iraq War is any indication willing to do just about anything to stave off foreign invasion.
The U.S. could afford to invade Iran right now if it wanted to. It's not so much about money but about political capital. People would not be happy given the state of the economy. Also, there is just no good reason that could be used to manufacture consent for invading Iran. Saying, "We're going in for the oil" would be a disaster. There has to be an incident created.

If Iran were secured by the U.S., it would then have complete control over the major Mid-East oil supply route and that would pay for all 3 wars combined. Iran is basically the only piece of the puzzle missing going all the way to the mediterranean for a trans-regional pipe line.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Iran has something the U.S. wants, so it's only a matter of time. Maybe not during Obama's admin, but some other one I'm sure.
There are dozens of countries that have things the US wants. Unless you're suggesting that we're going to invade all of them, I don't see how this supports your argument.
 

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There are dozens of countries that have things the US wants. Unless you're suggesting that we're going to invade all of them, I don't see how this supports your argument.
The middle east is an ongoing, long-term project. That combined with the rewards makes it the most viable target.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The middle east is an ongoing, long-term project. That combined with the rewards makes it the most viable target.
Sounds ominous. Did they give you a ring up there in Canada and let you in on it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The middle east is an ongoing, long-term project. That combined with the rewards makes it the most viable target.
That's certainly a reasonable hypothesis, but I don't think there's anything more to it.
 

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That's certainly a reasonable hypothesis, but I don't think there's anything more to it.
Unless the administration comes out and directly says "we are planning to take Iran", then obviously it's not confirmed. But it's more than a hypothesis, more like an educated assumption. Most academic communities that are aware of U.S. foreign policy - and particularly foreign policy relating to natural resources - know that the middle east is a long-term foothold region for the U.S. Almost every nation east of Iran is either under indirect U.S. control, is an ally that is rich in oil contracts, or begrudgingly co-operate as they do not want to face strategic implications from the U.S. With Iran procured it would be a simple matter to form a trans-continental pipeline (a segment of which was completed in Afghanistan prior to the invasion). Earlier I said the Mediterranean, I meant the Caspian. My bad.

There is already more than one pipeline happening in the region, but none are under sole U.S. proprietorship. Make no mistake... the war in the middle east is about oil and gas security, and not to save it from savage Muslims.

OPEC has had too much control for years. The U.S. just wants its piece of the pie.

Harshaw said:
Sounds ominous. Did they give you a ring up there in Canada and let you in on it?
I read books. You know, those things made of paper that can be found in libraries?
 
Last edited:

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Unless the administration comes out and directly says "we are planning to take Iran", then obviously it's not confirmed. But it's more than a hypothesis, more like an educated assumption
Not really sure what you're basing this on. Using this approach, I could make any claim I wanted (without any specific evidence) and just call it an "educated assumption."

I read books. You know, those things made of paper that can be found in libraries?
Can you give me the ISBN for this book you read that clued you in to future US military actions? I could make an absolute asston of money on intrade.

AIRSTRIKE.IRAN.MAR11 03:13

Intrade Prediction Markets
 

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Not really sure what you're basing this on. Using this approach, I could make any claim I wanted (without any specific evidence) and just call it an "educated assumption."

Can you give me the ISBN for this book you read that clued you in to future US military actions? I could make an absolute asston of money on intrade.

AIRSTRIKE.IRAN.MAR11 03:13

Intrade Prediction Markets
I never said there was a book that talked about the future. I am talking about the past. Simply connect the dots. You can see what foreign policy in the mid-east is really about, if you'd care to do some digging. If you're in denial for some reason then oh well. I wasn't trying to bash your country, just pointing out a reality.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I never said there was a book that talked about the future. I am talking about the past. Simply connect the dots. You can see what foreign policy in the mid-east is really about, if you'd care to do some digging. If you're in denial for some reason then oh well. I wasn't trying to bash your country, just pointing out a reality.
If it's so obvious to anyone who cares, why is the market pricing it so low?

Moreover, if you're so sure, why don't you invest? You've got 11:1 odds staring you right in the face.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
18,929
Reaction score
8,071
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Not really sure what you're basing this on. Using this approach, I could make any claim I wanted (without any specific evidence) and just call it an "educated assumption."



Can you give me the ISBN for this book you read that clued you in to future US military actions? I could make an absolute asston of money on intrade.

AIRSTRIKE.IRAN.MAR11 03:13

Intrade Prediction Markets
I would expect it is based on a few things, including PNAC' policy statement, the fact that the US to maintain world wide geopolitical dominance will require control over the majority of the worlds oil supply. As oil is the most important aspect of any modern economy, control over the supply is paramount to geopolitical control when you no longer can use economic threats alone as a lever of control

Iran is not the threat, China is. Iran, and the persian gulf oil supply is the means to infuence Chinese policy without getting into direct conflict with China. Control over the ME oil supply (Saudi, Iraq and Iran) would mean control over a large amount over the worlds oil supply. Providing a large lever on policy decisions on China and europe
 

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I would expect it is based on a few things, including PNAC' policy statement, the fact that the US to maintain world wide geopolitical dominance will require control over the majority of the worlds oil supply. As oil is the most important aspect of any modern economy, control over the supply is paramount to geopolitical control when you no longer can use economic threats alone as a lever of control

Iran is not the threat, China is. Iran, and the persian gulf oil supply is the means to infuence Chinese policy without getting into direct conflict with China. Control over the ME oil supply (Saudi, Iraq and Iran) would mean control over a large amount over the worlds oil supply. Providing a large lever on policy decisions on China and europe
Careful, you're in conspiracy theory territory now. :lol:
 

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If it's so obvious to anyone who cares, why is the market pricing it so low?

Moreover, if you're so sure, why don't you invest? You've got 11:1 odds staring you right in the face.
Why do I have to invest for it to be true? lol...
 

WI Crippler

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
15,429
Reaction score
9,577
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Not really sure what you're basing this on.
Its called correlation. You connect dots that may or may not necessarily be connecting/ed and you call it academic, educated, to further boost your argument(people will be impressed) etc... Its not a difficult philosophy, and its very convienent in debate.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I would expect it is based on a few things, including PNAC' policy statement, the fact that the US to maintain world wide geopolitical dominance will require control over the majority of the worlds oil supply. As oil is the most important aspect of any modern economy, control over the supply is paramount to geopolitical control when you no longer can use economic threats alone as a lever of control

Iran is not the threat, China is. Iran, and the persian gulf oil supply is the means to infuence Chinese policy without getting into direct conflict with China. Control over the ME oil supply (Saudi, Iraq and Iran) would mean control over a large amount over the worlds oil supply. Providing a large lever on policy decisions on China and europe
All of this is perfectly reasonable, yet nothing you just said indicates in any way that the US is going to attack Iran.

Why do I have to invest for it to be true? lol...
You don't. I'm simply pointing out an amazing opportunity for someone who's this well educated about the issue and is so confident in their conclusions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Its called correlation. You connect dots that may or may not necessarily be connecting/ed and you call it academic, educated, to further boost your argument(people will be impressed) etc... Its not a difficult philosophy, and its very convienent in debate.
Heh... if you're going to try to point out some logical fallacy of mine, you might as well address me directly.

Actually it's not my personal supposition, I just happen to agree with it. In most university polisci classes that discuss mid-east foreign policy, these kinds of conversations are going on. We can only make educated guesses about what the U.S. will do next, but Iran is a probable target based on the prior modus operandi of the U.S. in the mid-east. The U.S. is mainly there because of natural resources. All of its dealings with state powers and allies there revolve around that. Essentially, the entire middle east security dilemma in the modern world is an adaptation from the Cold War era, except now instead of defending capitalism, we are defending free market access to natural resources. What Tammerlain said is true... China poses a major threat to oil security. The African continent is already experiencing economic encursions from China in the oil sector. The Mid-East represents the equivalent for the U.S.

It's not really that hard to decipher. It's just a matter of examining the policy decisions happening there.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Heh... if you're going to try to point out some logical fallacy of mine, you might as well address me directly.

Actually it's not my personal supposition, I just happen to agree with it. In most university polisci classes that discuss mid-east foreign policy, these kinds of conversations are going on.
Funny, but I don't remember any of my professors saying that we were about to invade Iran.

We can only make educated guesses about what the U.S. will do next, but Iran is a probable target based on the prior modus operandi of the U.S. in the mid-east. The U.S. is mainly there because of natural resources. All of its dealings with state powers and allies there revolve around that. Essentially, the entire middle east security dilemma in the modern world is an adaptation from the Cold War era, except now instead of defending capitalism, we are defending free market access to natural resources. What Tammerlain said is true... China poses a major threat to oil security. The African continent is already experiencing economic encursions from China in the oil sector. The Mid-East represents the equivalent for the U.S.
You realize that you just repeated the things that have already been said in this thread? That still doesn't prove we're going to invade Iran.

It's not really that hard to decipher. It's just a matter of examining the policy decisions happening there.
If it's so easy to decipher, why does the market indicate that it's so incredibly unlikely?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
18,929
Reaction score
8,071
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
All of this is perfectly reasonable, yet nothing you just said indicates in any way that the US is going to attack Iran.



You don't. I'm simply pointing out an amazing opportunity for someone who's this well educated about the issue and is so confident in their conclusions.
will the US attack Iran


I cant say, I am certain certain members of the government want to from senator, congressment, and other policy makers. Others of course do not, or feel the current costs of doing so outweigh the benifits for the US to do so. Iran was fortunate though that the US invasion of Iraq was as planned as poorly as it was, causing a huge tie up in US military forces.

Should though the cost of attacking Iran be viewed as not too extreme I would not be suprised by an attack (although more unlikely under Obama then McCain)
 

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Funny, but I don't remember any of my professors saying that we were about to invade Iran.
Great?

You realize that you just repeated the things that have already been said in this thread? That still doesn't prove we're going to invade Iran.
Congratulations in showing that I can't peer into the future.

If it's so easy to decipher, why does the market indicate that it's so incredibly unlikely?
:shrug:
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
18,929
Reaction score
8,071
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If it's so easy to decipher, why does the market indicate that it's so incredibly unlikely?
Really

Using the market to decifer the future

How did that work for Enron, Worldcom, the housing bubble, the internet bubble, etc.

The market is just a snapshot on how the individuals involved in that market feel things will work out, it does not mean it will be an accurate predictor of what will happen
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Really

Using the market to decifer the future

How did that work for Enron, Worldcom, the housing bubble, the internet bubble, etc.

The market is just a snapshot on how the individuals involved in that market feel things will work out, it does not mean it will be an accurate predictor of what will happen
You're confusing two different things.

The market is not necessarily an accurate predictor of what will happen.

The market is an accurate measure of what people think will happen.

Orion has made the unsupportable claim that it's somehow obvious that the US will invade Iran. He has argued that it's easy for an enlightened and intelligent guy like him to understand this. If that were true, then we would see something very different in the market. We don't, which leads to the obvious conclusion: He doesn't have any more insight into what will happen than anyone else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
Top Bottom